The Fear of Losing Out

A study on the uncertainty of Singapore’s prosperous future among leaders in

the private sector

University of Amsterdam

Name: Clare P. P. L. M. M. Sabatucci

Student ID: 11082631

Program: M.Sc. Contemporary Asian Studies

Department: Graduate School of Social Sciences

Supervisor: Gerben Nooteboom

Word Count: 22645

Date of Submission: July 3rd, 2017

2

ABSTRACT

I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is

not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.

- Nelson Mandela

Kiasu, a word originating from the Hokkien dialect, and appearing in the Oxford Dictionary in

2011 as “a grasping, selfish attitude”, has a literal translation of “the fear of losing out”.

Previous research on kiasu has been limited to an individual level in the educational sphere

which uses kiasuism to explain and predict student behaviors (Ho et. al, 1998). Moreover, as

Bedford and Chua (2017) show, studies on kiasuism show an inconsistency in its

conceptualization and focus more on the behavior and intent rather than the motivation and

origin of kiasu behavior. The term, sometimes being translated as a positive attribute such as

the eagerness of doing all and more to achieve results has almost redefined itself more

significantly in recent years to connote a social infection of insecurity and fear that has led to

behaviors of greed and self-interest amongst Singaporeans. Though some like Kirby et. al,

(2010) express kiasu as a “deliberate maneuver” or “context-specific tactic for obtaining goals”,

my findings argue kiasuism as more of a mindset or overarching philosophy of an approach to

life. This thesis discusses kiasuism in a more communal approach, finding its roots in collective

historical experiences and the social environment of Singapore, encompassing its effects on

Singaporean leadership and the future of Singapore. The decision of stretching the discussion

of kiasu to encompass its effects on leadership and Singapore’s future lies in the importance

and significance of human capital and its talent development with respects to Singapore’s

success story. As Singapore recognizes that the quality of a nation’s manpower resources is the

single most important factor determining national competitiveness (Juma, 2013). Singapore’s

future and its competitive advantage in the global economy, has been a common topic of

discussion in recent months. Additionally, globalization of business has placed new demands

on management thinking and education, “making a basic understanding of cultural differences

and their management implications a prerequisite for the global manager” (Hwang et al, 2003).

With the death of its founding father and the significant impact of a globalized world, the

question has been posed if Singaporeans are able to socially make the transformation that some

(Ong, 2016) argue is needed in order ensure the continuum of its great economic success. By

conducting field work in Singapore over a period of four months, collecting data through

academic literature, social media, newspapers, social observations and semi-structured

3

interviews with 25 influential, business leaders and academics in Singapore, the author

develops a perspective on kiasuism, as the phenomenon of a national habit of fear and insecurity

and as a hindrance on global leadership development in Singapore. Such consequences, born

out of a fear of losing out or falling behind in society with respects to one’s peers and constant

anxiety of missing opportunities, are characterized as behaviors of selfishness, calculative

obsession of measuring ones’ success with their peers, greed and risk aversion. Such

characteristics are counterproductive towards the goal of a “one Singapore” culture and the

continuum of the economic power house as a business hub with global leaders. As such, this

thesis argues that it is the phenomenon of the “fear of losing out”, that causes for an insecurity

and uncertainty of the continuum of Singapore’s prosperous future.

4

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 7

1.1. RELEVANCE ............................................................................................................. 10

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 13

1.3. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON KIASU ............................................ 19

2.1. ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCERS .................................................................................... 20

2.2. SELECTED SCENES IN HISTORY ..................................................................................... 21

2.2.1. The Obscure Tropical Island................................................................................. 21

2.2.2. The Japanese Invasion .......................................................................................... 23

2.2.3. The 1950s-60s Riots .............................................................................................. 25

2.2.4. The Malaysian Merger Attempt............................................................................. 28

2.3. THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT ..................................................................................... 29

2.3.1. Singapore’s Armed Forces .................................................................................... 30

2.3.2. International Trade and Foreign Talent Policies ................................................. 31

2.3.3. Meritocratic Singapore and Multiracialism as a Policy ....................................... 32

2.4. EDUCATION IN SINGAPOREAN SOCIETY ......................................................................... 36

CHAPTER 3: THE KIASU PHENOMENON ................................................................... 39

3.1. SINGAPOREAN KIASU ............................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 4: THE LEADERSHIP LENS ......................................................................... 44

4.1. SINGAPORE’S NEED FOR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP .............................................................. 46

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS ......................................................... 53

5.1. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 53

5.2. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 61

5

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 68

1. LIST OF RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 68

2. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 69

6

List of Abbreviations

S$ Singapore Dollar

DDI Development Dimensions International Inc.

CCL Center for Creative Leadership

CEO Chief Executive Officer

COO Chief Operating Officer

HCLI Human Capital Leadership Institute

HRM Human Resource Management

IQ Intellectual Quotient

KPI Key Performance Indicators

LKY Lee Kuan Yew

MNC Multinational Corporation

MRT Mass Rapid Transport

NMP Nominated Member of Parliament

NTU Nanyang Technological University

PAP People’s Action Party

PR Permanent Resident

SBF Singapore Business Federation

SGP Singapore

SME Small Medium Enterprises

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Fear has been a favorite motivational tool of many of our parents, teachers, bosses and even

politicians. Managed well, fear is a perfectly healthy kick in the pants to force us out of

complacency and into action. Fear compels us to man up, save more, study hard, work long.

Fear in that sense is an emotion that does help us take care of our future. But it loses these

powerful positive effects when it goes beyond a temporary emotion we feel, to a permanent

disposition we live in. When fear becomes part of our emotional and cultural DNA, we lock

ourselves into a habit of self-limiting behaviors. I don’t think kiasu culture should be

celebrated. In fact, I think we should kill it. Because all these behaviors that we are telling

Singaporeans are necessary to take us into the future - innovation, productivity, collaboration,

generosity to the needy - they are wholly dependent on a person’s desire and drive to generate

greater worth and real value to share with the world and kiasu culture doesn’t give a damn

about generating or sharing worth and value. The kiasu person will even pursue things of

questionable worth he himself doesn’t believe in, as long as he sees everyone else is doing so.”

(Kuik Shiao-Yin, 5 April 2016, speech given at Budget Debates in Singapore

Parliament)

On Tuesday the 5th of April, 2016, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Kuik Shiao-Yin

called for the eradication of Singapore’s “kiasu” culture describing it as “a national habit of

fear that poses as a cultural roadblock to social transformation and at great cost to the economy”

(Ong, 2016). Kiasu, literally defined as ‘the fear of losing out’ has predominantly been

characterized with attributes of selfishness, obsessive competition, greed and risk-aversion (Ho

et al, 1998). Although the conceptualization and application of kiasu has previously been

researched, it has been limited to a group of nine studies, of which six applied the

conceptualization developed in previous studies (Ho et al, 1998; Hwang et al, 2002; Hwang,

2003; Hwang & Arbuagh, 2006; Kirby & Ross, 2007; Kirby et al, 2010; Ellis, 2014; Li & Fang,

2002; Wierzbicka, 2003). Of the three studies that intend to propose a conceptualization or

measure of kiasuism, there remains a level of uncertainty towards the motivations behind the

mindset and “whether all forms of kiasuism inherently entail a comparative element” (Bedford

& Chua, 2017:6).

8

Today, the discussion has grown to encompass its effects on Singapore’s future as some like

NMP Kuik Shiao-Yin, argue that Singaporeans kiasu-mentality has led to barrier on social

transformation characterized as necessary for Singapore to retain its competitive advantage on

a global scale. Similarly, Bedford and Chua (2017), highlight this as well as they present the

most recent study on the conceptualization of kiasu. They highlight the implication of their

study on the low level of interest in entrepreneurship among Singaporean youth and explain

that “in light of the great concern with losing out relative to peers, failing in business may not

only imply financial failure but also social failure relative to others” (Bedford & Chua,

2017:17). This thesis therefore, discusses kiasuism as a phenomenon of a “cultural aversion to

failure” (Wu et al, 2001) and a “national fixation” (Ho et al, 1998) that has been “woven into

Singapore’s cultural fabric” (Lee, 2010) and aims to identify an understanding of the

motivations behind the behaviors and its effect on global leadership development in Singapore.

Appearing officially in the Oxford Dictionary in 2011, kiasu is defined as “a grasping, selfish

attitude” and a kiasu person as “very anxious not to miss an opportunity” (Ellis, 2014). Though

the term does not have a direct equivalent in the English language as it embraces more than

being fiercely competitive, its translations aim to encompass winning at all costs, “an

unwillingness to lose out in any aspect of life, whether in education, career or parenting” (Ellis,

2014). Additionally, Wu et al (2001), argue that it is due to “cultural attributes”, similar to the

behaviors of a kiasu person, that “Singaporean managers cannot leave matters to chance or to

others, always plan for future contingencies and seek assurance”. Kiasuism, has thus been

characterized in both positive and negative connotations (Ho et al, 1998; Hwang et al, 2002;

Kirby et al, 2010). Though some like Chua (1989), argue that the kiasu mindset may be positive

as it could lead to “diligence and hard work” and could even be the explanation of the miracle

of Singapore’s formation and existence, the debate has significantly favored its negative

connotation in recent years. Additionally, as suggested by the literal translation of kiasu, Wu et

al (2001) argue that the emphasis is “on not losing rather than winning or reducing the risk of

failure, rather than striving for success”. Some like Chew (1994), argue that at the heart of kiasu

is “a feeling of helplessness and fear in the face of an overpowering political and power

structure, that the average person cannot hope to participate in or penetrate”. Whereas others

such as Wu et al, (2001) have argued that its existence is “linked to theories of unlimited wants

and limited recourses”, where it is expressed as a cultural behavior that stems from “the non-

satisfaction of human needs” and that such behaviors can be found elsewhere, especially in

Hong Kong, Australia (Ho et al, 1998) and the United States (Kirby et al, 2010). Additionally,

9

it is a trait that some (Lee, 2010) have observed as “running parallel with both national and

individual anxieties” about the pursuit of the good life in a “highly competitive and resource-

scarce country” (Ellis, 2014). Its popularity amongst such cultures has been linked to a certain

“mentality of the public living and working in a fast-paced and competition-filled territory”,

that is, people’s aspiration to make more efforts “to avoid lagging behind others” (Wu et al,

2001). Nevertheless, one could argue that the construct and application used in previous studies

deviates from how kiasuism is broadly understood and practiced in Singapore’s context.

Therefore, the arguments in this thesis aim to: conceptualize kiasuism as represented within the

private sector in Singapore and stretch the conceptualization to encompass collective historical

experiences and its implication on leadership, and the future of Singapore. By analyzing a

collection environmental and societal factors, such as Singapore’s geographical size or its

pragmatic, meritocratic political system, that are explanations to the national habit of fear and

insecurity, one can reflect on how to manage its negative effects.

In effort of seeking a deeper understanding of kiasuism and its attributed effects on Singapore’s

future, the discussion in this thesis centers around the private sector. The findings showed that

the general concern with Singapore’s future focuses on activities to foster talent, creating an

economy that is not constrained by geographical boundaries, and the education and grooming

of global leaders. The author therefore applies the understanding of kiasuism, to global

leadership development in Singapore as to represent the limitations of kiasu mentality on the

continuum of Singapore’s prosperous future.

This discussion will be presented in the following way; first, certain environmental, historical

and societal factors will be analyzed as to better understand the existence of the kiasu mindset

in Singaporean society today. Second, a characterization of Singapore’s kiasu culture and its

representation in the business sphere will be presented, referencing interviews with local

business leaders. Third, the importance of global leadership development in Singapore will be

explained and the adverse effects kiasu mentality may have on this development are expressed.

Lastly, this thesis will conclude with a discussion, together with a description of some of the

limitations and implications regarding future studies.

Though it may seem that this thesis, and the articles it refers to, may equate kiasuism with

Singaporeans and their culture as a whole, it is important to recognize that Singapore is the

10

symbol of a multiracial and multicultural nation. This implies that; not all Singaporeans pose

the same or even similar cultural values. As a matter of fact, superficially, Singapore is made

up of four cultures; the Chinese-Singaporean culture, as well as, the Malay, Indian and a group

of others which usually refers to a third of the population which consists of foreigners.

Nevertheless, due to this thesis and its related field work being conducted within the scope of

Singapore’s corporate private sector and educational spheres, which consist to a vast majority

of Chinese-Singaporeans for reasons outside the scope of this thesis, it is therefore that all

characterization of Singaporean culture and identity within this thesis is biased to the fact that

the Chinese-Singaporean culture is the most predominant within the chosen context. This can

also be explained by the fact that 74.2% of Singaporeans are of Chinese ethnicity (Singapore

Government Statistics).

1.1.Relevance

“The city-state’s government has critics, but Singapore’s efficiency, economic successes, safety

and security are impossible to deny. However, maintaining momentum and securing

sustainable growth will be a challenge for policy makers in the years ahead due to new domestic

and international uncertainties”

(Henderson, 2012)

As Henderson (2012) acknowledges, with a country that is recognized worldwide for

developing at rates faster than any other economy in the world, there is a constant concern and

interest in forecasting future developments and focusing all efforts to the continuum of

prosperous progression. In position papers published by the Singapore Business Federation

(SBF) in early 2016, some of the concerns and solutions for ensuring a bright and prosperous

future for Singapore’s economy are highlighted. The documents characterize Singapore’s

economy as entering a new era and facing a more challenging environment, internally and

externally. Internally, ongoing economic restructuring is said to be taking its toll on some

businesses as they continue to struggle with “rising business costs, rapidly shrinking and aging

local workforce, foreign manpower curbs, and close to zero productivity growth” (DDI, 2015).

The position papers characterize Singapore’s economy as losing its competitiveness while other

economies of neighboring countries are catching up. Externally, the global economic outlook

is said to be “stagnating with little signs of picking up” and emerging economies are said to be

11

“faltering due to the low commodity prices”, such as oil. As Singapore is a small island nation

with several ties to external economies, there is a constant concern with trends and activities

outside of its border. This concern can be traced back to its history of “backlashes” caused by

foreign factors and a reason why a global stagnating economy is said to have a direct effect on

Singapore’s economy and future. Though the position papers arguably paint a very negative

self-image of Singapore’s economy, the facts presented are tied to actual figures measured

within the Singapore context. A doubt arises however in the implication of such figures and

their relation to figures of other nations. The author struggles with comparison of such figures

without a proper understanding of all the direct and indirect variables that may correlate to such

figures, such as, a nation’s history and culture.

Nevertheless, together with the government led Economic Strategies Committee, the SBF has

unveiled its recommendations on achieving sustained and inclusive growth for Singapore. The

recommendations include; “a stronger focus on activities to foster talent, creating an economy

that is not constrained by geographical boundaries, and educating and grooming international

managers and global leaders who are capable of operating across different cultures and

geographies” (DDI, 2015). The expressed need for educating and grooming global leaders is of

significant relevance to the context of this research project. The aim of the research presented

is to therefore challenge this expressed need given the cultural and environmental factors

present in Singapore today.

Moreover, if one refers to the Singapore’s Leadership Readiness report delivered by the

Development Dimensions International Inc. (DDI), one can see that Singaporean leaders have

been characterized as slightly lacking in comparison to the global leadership benchmark as

presented by table 1.

12

Table 1. Leadership challenges inventory ratings

As shown in Table 1., compared to their global counter parts, Singapore-based leaders tend to

be more approval-dependent, perfectionistic, risk averse and avoidant. While the assumption is

that each of these characteristics could be correlated to kiasuism, its proven attributes of

selfishness, calculative obsession, greed and risk-aversion (Ho et al, 1998) can be presented as

an explanation of this leadership gap on a global scale. Similarly, the data and analysis in this

report shows that, based on their skills and personality patterns, leaders in Singapore are “not

yet ready” to; “drive growth through local and global expansion, cultivate innovation, and

engage and inspire people” (DDI, 2015). Although such figures and research are arguable and

one poses the immediate question regarding the actual meaning and measurement of “Global

Benchmark”, the fact of the matter is that these figures make up the foundation of the argument

expressed by policy makers and influential business leaders in Singapore as they express

concern with local societal behaviors and human capital development given the context of the

global scale. Moreover, I myself also observed indicators of the global leadership gap in

Singapore, as during my fieldwork period I had significant trouble finding Singaporean

nationals in managerial positions within multinationals or other large corporate organizations

in Singapore.

Another influential variable in contemporary Singaporean society which is of relevance to the

discussion in this thesis, is the recent death of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY).

Born on September 16th, 1923, he was the first Prime Minister of Singapore and is known for

“raising a poor port from the bottom rungs of the third world to the first world in a single

generation” (Allison, 2015). Though a complete biography and list of achievements would be

13

outside the scope of this thesis, one should recognize that the complete existence of this thesis,

as well as that of Singapore, would be merely fictional if it were not for LKY. His legacy of

transforming and obscure tropical island into what is now known as a leading Asian Tiger, in a

significantly short period of time, is renowned and undeniable. Nevertheless, today, it’s the

durability of his legacy that lies under question. Recent newspaper articles such as those from

the Strait Times, centered around Singapore in the last year have the common attribute of

discussing Singapore’s future without LKY. People appear to be very occupied with

understanding what kind of effects Lee Kuan Yew’s death will have on Singapore’s future and

argue that though “he is characterized as the founding father of his country, he did not leave

behind a system of beliefs that can tie people together” (Han, 2015). The ambiguity of

Singapore’s next chapter in history without the presence of its “founding father” is yet another

factor that made this research relevant.

1.2.Research Questions

In effort to better the understanding of kiasuism and its repercussions on talent development,

and with it the continuum of Singapore’s prosperous future, the research question is fragmented

into three sub-questions. Each sub-question is aimed at a different layer of the understanding

of kiasuism and more importantly, whether its contemporary effects are detrimental for

Singapore’s future. These sub-questions posed as focus tool in my fieldwork which enabled me

to keep informants’ interviews on topic, as well as, the main guideline of questions this thesis

aims to answer.

Sub-question one: Can environmental and social factors help explain the phenomenon of kiasu

mentality?

This sub question is aimed to deepen the understanding of the existence of kiasuism and how

certain environmental factors, such as the size and location of the country, as well as, societal

factors, such as its politics and social norms, can explain this national habit of fear and

insecurity. The importance of this sub-question lies in the goal to understanding kiasuism

effects as I believe that to understand how a concept might react or effect another, one must

first understand the foundation of the concept. As such, this sub-question is aimed to lay out

the foundation of understanding of Singaporean culture and society today.

14

Sub-question two: How can one characterize Singapore’s human capital scene and its leaders

and what are the apparent limitations or concerns related to its development?

This question is aimed at the understanding of contemporary Singapore’s talent pool and its

development. Questions directed at describing typical Singaporean employees and their

attitudes and values were posed. Though such understandings can sometimes be relative, the

aim was to understand why such attributes have been linked to a talent pool gap. Moreover, I

aimed to understand the talent development scene as I initiated my fieldwork with interviewing

academics and researchers in this field. Subsequently, an investigation took place into what it

means to be a global leader and why it has been deemed as a crucial and necessary asset for

Singapore’s future. At the core of this sub question is the understanding as to why it was

difficult to find Singaporean directors or managers at the head of large corporations in

Singapore and why there is a discussion amongst Singaporean business leaders characterizing

Singaporeans as “not yet ready to” compete on the global leadership scale.

Sub-question three: What are the effects of a kiasu mentality and its attributes on leadership

development and the continuum of a prosperous future in Singapore?

This sub question was aimed at the understanding of kiasu and its attributes’ effects on

leadership practices in Singapore’s corporate sphere. Questions were directed to the

understanding of what attributes, behaviors and values are important for effective and efficient

leadership for the future of Singapore, as well as, some of the characteristics that cause for

limitations in the race to closing the global leadership gap. Furthermore, at the core of this sub-

question lies the understanding of how kiasuism has led some Singaporeans to believe is the

explanation as to the social limitations hindering Singapore’s continuum of competitive

advantage on a global scale.

1.3.Methodology

The data presented in the following thesis was retrieved in Singapore during a fieldwork period

of four months. The data consists of a collection of 20 interviews, a significant number of

academic articles retrieved from the online library of the University of Amsterdam, online

15

newspapers articles from newspapers such as The Straight Times and Chanel News Asia, a

variety of videos from online sources such as YouTube and some additional documents

received from one of my gatekeepers. The collection of data focuses on the topics of kiasu,

leadership and more specifically, cross-culture leadership and global leadership,

multiculturalism and the Singaporean society.

The reasons for choosing Singapore as my fieldwork destination were on the one hand personal

and practical but also because of Singapore’s position in the world economy of today. Being

trained in Economics and Business Economics, my interest in one of the world’s ‘Asian Tigers’

was inevitable. Moreover, at the time of my fieldwork, Singapore had just surpassed its 50

years’ mark which posed for an interesting milestone and observing the social, political and

economic environment during this period was of interest. Leadership also posed as a relevant

topic for the setting of Singapore as it fosters many institutions and organizations aimed at the

development of leadership in the region, such as the Center for Creative Leadership and the

Human Capital Leadership Institute. Similarly, with a population compromising of four

different ethnicities, approximately half of its population being foreign and the government

openly implementing multiculturalism as a policy, Singapore deemed a great candidate for the

study of multiculturalism and other cultural interests. Additionally, my personal connection to

Singapore was already very present as I had had the opportunity of following an exchange

semester at the Nanyang Technological University three years prior to my fieldwork which also

resulted in already having established some significant connections prior to my fieldwork which

deemed very beneficial.

During my stay in Singapore I stayed with a previously acquainted host family who lived very

close to NTU. They have three daughters, all of which are working and similar in age to myself.

I spent a lot of time with the family and participated in several family events and gatherings

which gave a great insight into Singaporean society and way of life. Even though Singapore is

often described as significantly tiny, on average it took me close to two hours to travel anywhere

with Singapore’s Mass Rapid Transit system (MRT). Additionally, because nearly all of my

informants were high-profile individuals who aim to use their time efficiently, nearly all of my

interviews had to take place within one hour. Moreover, during my stay in Singapore I was also

able to rejoin the University Swimming League where I spent a lot of time training with my

local friends and engaging in additional networking activities at the university. This is also

where I had previously met my primary gatekeeper.

16

I used three gatekeepers during my fieldwork period who helped me connect with other

informants and who enabled me with relevant insight for my thesis. As mentioned, my primary

gatekeeper is an old friend of mine who I had the pleasure of meeting through my swimming

activities in 2013 and who happens to be one of the most powerful and elite business men in

Singapore today. The other two gatekeepers work for the European Union and provided me the

contact details of four of my informants.

During the duration of my fieldwork I conducted 20 focused, standardized and semi-structured

interviews. As previously stated, almost all the respondents (13 out of 20) are high-profiled

individuals with limited time which sometimes requested to see my interview guide prior to the

interview. The interview guide was a list of roughly 20-25 questions regarding all the relevant

topics I aimed to cover during all of my interviews and was to serve more as a guideline rather

than a fixed agenda. The construction of this guide was also one of careful thought as I noticed

early on that some of my informants requested a list of questions prior to the scheduled

interview in effort to prepare themselves and be efficient given their time constraint. I created

two versions of this guide, one for informants active in a managerial position in multinational

companies (MNCs) or smaller, medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore and the other

for the informants active in academia. After most of my interviews, the guide would be edited

with respect to the new information retrieved from the interviews. This was an important aspect

of my interviewing process as often informants claimed the need to prepare themselves prior to

the interview and I did not want to give too much away with the risk of receiving ‘text-book’

answers. Therefore, I always stressed that the interviews would cover the topics present in the

guide but with the possibility of freewheeling with the intention to dig deeper into relevant

topics. Moreover, the choice to use standardized and semi-structured interviews was based on

several considerations: (1) Interviews had to be and always were scheduled activities. This

meant that I had to be prepared prior to the interview and as mentioned, often informants

requested to know exactly what was expected of them and what topics would be covered. (2) I

was aware that I would not get another chance to interview respondents a second time and

therefore had to make sure that I covered all the necessary topics within the first interview.

Having an interview guide in front of me during the interview enabled this. (3) I was aware that

my informants are powerful and highly intelligent and that I had to be able to exert some amount

of control during the interview and I wanted to prove that I had enough knowledge of the topics

discussed to make a good impression which, from experience, I knew lead to more trust and

17

openness from the informant. (4) All my informants have a common language. This does not

only imply that they all spoke English but that they all spoke the ‘business’ language, which

therefore made things more practical and allowed me to have a standardized list of questions.

The interview guide started with a few structured questions aimed more at the demographics of

informants and ended with the majority of questions being open questions aimed at

understanding informants’ beliefs and opinions on the relevant topics. A copy of the interview

questions guideline can be viewed in the appendix section of this thesis.

Prior to my fieldwork, I characterized my informants as Singaporean nationals with experience

in high-profiled managerial positions in multinational companies in Singapore. Additionally, I

also searched to interview individuals engaged in the academics of cultural leadership or with

any experience in this field. Much to my surprise, within the first month I learnt that there are

not very many Singaporean nationals in top positions in MNCs in Singapore and I decided to

change my focus slightly to SMEs where I knew more top level managers would be

Singaporean. The informants in this data set are therefore split into two groups of which each

group has two sub groups.

The first group consists of business men and women in a managerial position or with significant

managerial experience in the corporate world of Singapore. The terms ‘corporate world’ is then

further diversified into big multinational companies and smaller, medium sized enterprises.

Thereby creating the two sub groups of which one consists of high-profile, top-level managers

(10 informants) and the second compromising of smaller, lower-level or sometimes junior

managers (4 informants). Within this first group of 14 individuals, 12 informants hold a

Singaporean passport and all have lived at least 20 years in Singapore with 5-15 years of

managerial experience.

The second group consists of individuals active in academia and more precisely in the field of

cultural leadership. Additionally, two of the informants in this group were directors of

Universities and therefore could also provide me with insight regarding their experience in a

leadership position. Out of the six informants in this group, five informants have the

Singaporean nationality, one is a student and one is a researcher in the same field as this research

project. Interviews did however follow a less formal structure with informants in this group as

they seemed more eager to have open conversations regarding the relevant topics as to discuss

also my own opinions on the matter.

18

The academic literature I used was derived mostly from academic journals such as the Asia

Pacific Journal of Management, Asia Pacific Business Review, Journal of Management and

Administrative Science Quarterly. Moreover, the series of books by David Ulrich on

‘Leadership in Asia’ provided an important part of the context of my research. Furthermore, a

collection videos from online sources such as YouTube on interviews with Mr. Lee Kwan Yew

for example or TedTalks about leadership, multiculturalism and globalization were also

referred to. Additionally, information was retrieved from institutional websites like the ones of

the Human Capital Leadership Institute and the Center for Creative Leadership as well as

university websites and the government websites as the one of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

or the Ministry of Education. All other information regarding the government was retrieved

from documents provided to me by one of my gatekeepers with close connections to the

Singaporean government. This collection of data together with the transcriptions of all the

interviews of my informants deemed significantly informative and important for my research.

Due to most of my informants having high profiled positions in society and in the corporate

sphere of Singapore I decided not to disclose any of the authentic names of individuals and the

organizations they work for in the whole of this thesis. This was also a beneficial factor to my

research as I noticed that informants spoke more openly once informed of their anonymity

within my research and the fact that nearly all interviews were performed in a closed and private

office space. Nevertheless, it should also be recognized that as my informants knew of the fact

that I was recording our interviews, it did happen that one informant altered their answers in

the fear that I might leak a negative comment about them. I therefore excluded most of the

informant’s answers from my data set but luckily this did not affect my data significantly as the

informant was not Singaporean.

19

Chapter 2: Contextual Influences on Kiasu

“Unless you know where you came from, unless you know what your ancestors have been

through, you have no reference point. What makes us different from say; a Thai, or a Pilipino,

or the Sri Lankans? The difference is how we came here, how we developed. And that requires

a sense of history.”

- Lee Kwan Yew

As Lee Kwan Yew explains in one of his many interviews with the press, to fully grasp the

meanings and insights behind the Singaporean people and their culture it is necessary to fully

understand how historical and other contextual factors have affected and shaped them. This

chapter therefore, provides insights into certain environmental factors, selected scenes in

Singapore’s history and the social environment that are assumed to have strongly affected

Singaporean kiasu culture today. Similarly, the selection of these specific scenes was chosen in

collaboration with my informants as I posed each of them the question; “Where do you think

the kiasu mindset we see today comes from? Why are Singaporeans so kiasu?”

Singapore’s geographical location and size are one of the possible influential factors to the

formation of the kiasu national habit of fear. Moreover, the fact that Singapore has no other

resources apart from its human capital allows for the understanding as to why a sense of fear

and insecurity in relation to other nations has developed over time. Furthermore, several

historical happenings deemed as uncontrollable events that influenced the existence of

Singapore and the social formation of its people is relevant to the understanding of

contemporary Singaporean society. A series of other contextual factors will be explained that

deem necessary for the foundation of the understanding of kiasuism, such as a range of

governmental efforts and policies that shaped contemporary Singapore. The first section of this

chapter will provide some background environmental and historical information. For simplicity

and cohesiveness this thesis will not elaborate on a consecutive time line of Singapore’s history.

Instead, specific scenes and moments in Singapore’s history have been chosen to represent a

possible explanation to the kiasu culture of its people today. As research will present, there is

an initial debate regarding whether Singapore’s inherent kiasu culture can be explained by its

history as a nation of transactional traders or by government efforts and policies. Nevertheless,

no research has attempted to answer this question in depth yet. This chapter aims to represent

how the conceptualization of kiasuism has formulated in my perspective as I strongly believe

20

that it is the combination of historical, environmental and social factors that has given meaning

to the kiasu mindset.

2.1. Environmental Influencers

“And so, for lack of a better analogy, I am going to use the analogy of the cockroach.

I don’t know if you know this about the cockroach, but the cockroach can survive in

any environment. It’s the oldest thing on the planet, and it can survive in any

environment, whether it is a wet environment or dry environment and it just deals

with it as it comes and I think Singaporeans tend to do that. Singaporeans are like

cockroaches. We will do anything to survive”

(Segment form my interview with Ms. YF)

Singapore consists of the island of Singapore and 58 islets in the surrounding territorial waters.

The main island is ca. 42 km long, 23 km wide, 574 km squared in area, and has a coastline of

150 km in length (Hesp, 1995). Upon discussing with my informants, reasons why certain

behaviors or even political policies have taken place in Singapore in recent years, almost

everybody exclaimed that the problem with Singapore is that, it is small.

“Singaporeans are very practical, so their whole approach is transactional and

practical when it comes to business and in their personal life that kind of rubs off.

Also, they are cloistered. Singapore is an island, a small place in this whole south

east Asian region, so they have kind of grown up in this cocoon. Therefore, that also

leads them to be slightly more insecure which again leads to practicality over being

a bit more on the emotional side and so on and so forth.”

(fragment from interview with Mr. AK)

Informants explained that being a small country has its benefits in the ability to exert control

over a whole population as such control can be easily manageable given the ground to cover.

Similarly, its location has been characterized as one of the reasons why settlers and traders

came to Singapore in the 14th century as it lays at a perfect crossroads with world trading routes.

Nevertheless, the size and location of the nation has forever been a vulnerability according to

informants. For example, I often wondered why my Singaporean friends must go back to the

21

Singapore Army every year for a period of two weeks, as if another world war is about to break

out at any minute. They explained that so many powerful nations have had interest and made

investments in Singapore that the public fears that at any minute, these powerful nations might

invade, ‘again’ and Singaporeans will be lost. This fear and insecurity has its roots in historical

experiences but has been justified repeatedly over time as a given fact or a norm, given that

Singapore is a small island. Furthermore, the fact that the island has no natural resources has

been characterized as another reason of the development of a national habit of insecurity. As

selected scenes in history show, the island of Singapore has often found itself in the need of

survival, as a helping hand from its neighbors or even its colonial power, were scarce.

Moreover, if one examines the fact that the phenomenon of kiasu, as a national fear of losing

out, has been proven to exist outside the boarders of Singapore, especially in Hong Kong and

Australia (Ho et al, 1998), one can begin to understand the similarities in environmental factors

that might be the cause to this phenomenon. Australia being an island with minimal resources

also symbolizes a nation in constant fear of invasion and insecurity towards the outside world.

Though these environmental factors are not proven to have causal effects on the formation of

kiasuism, I do propose that they presented a foundation and provided an environment that

fosters a need of survival and feeling of insecurity.

2.2. Selected Scenes in History

2.2.1. The Obscure Tropical Island

The history of Singapore can be traced back to as early as the 14th century, where Chinese

explorers wrote about a small settlement inhabited by Malays and Chinese (Hong, 2008). It was

the oldest location where a Chinese community was known to exist outside of China. Between

the 16th and 19th centuries however, the Malay Archipelago was gradually taken over by

European colonial powers. The Portuguese arrived in Malacca in 1509 and their dominance

was challenged and defeated in the 17th century by the Dutch, who ended up establishing a

monopoly over trade within the region (Hong, 2008). On the 28th of January 1819, Sir Stamford

Raffles, a Lieutenant Governor of the British East India Company, arrived in Singapore, and its

transformational journey from mangrove to metropolis started. Raffles had a profound

admiration for Singapore and its potential as a trading hub due to its favorable location (Hong,

2008).

22

Raffles set up many plans for the future he envisioned for Singapore, like the architectural plan

of Singapore’s roads still visible today. His plans started with the idea that Singapore was to be

a location for trade, a location that provided the service of free trade where anyone from

anywhere could come to sell anything with nobody interfering (Hong, 2008). His ideology of

freedom and efficiency, which was said to be influenced by the philosophical movement of The

Enlightment taking place in Europe at the time, were the base of his plans. A common example

is the simplicity and efficiency behind contemporary Singapore’s architectural landscape

(Henderson, 2012). Almost all the roads and buildings in Singapore today, as well as their

location, were planned by Raffles. Moreover, Raffles’ vision of Singapore not only consisted

of freedom and efficiency but also trade (Henderson, 2012). Ever since the 19th century,

Singapore’s fortunes have depended on the influx and outflow of international trade. Novelists

who characterize Singapore at this time, compare it to a bee hive with traders from all over the

world swarming in and around Singapore to conduct business free of tax and free of law.

Additionally, this freedom also presented people with a location where they could practice their

religion freely. From the very beginning, religious tolerance was part of the ethos of multiethnic

Singapore. Nevertheless, this freedom soon became a burden for the new trading settlement as

Singapore experienced increasing cases of sex and slave trading, cock fighting, gambling and

the consumption of opium (Hong, 2008).

The history of Singapore as an obscure tropical island might not be as significant to this thesis

as the sections that will follow, but it was chosen to represent the beginning of Singapore’s

trade culture. Moreover, this section of history is arguably the first time that Singapore

experienced vast levels of freedom, as well as, its negative consequences. I believe that this was

not only the first but also the last time that Singapore ever experienced such levels of freedom

and that the consequences, with which it came with, were so detrimental to the well-being of

its people that such levels of freedom were never really considered ever again. This belief was

also strengthened upon discussing this period of time with informants. They argued in favor of

contemporary governmental policies by saying; “government policies today make sure that

those horrible images of Singapore as a hot spot for gambling, sex slaves and drug use do not

happen again. Singapore is beautiful today. We have no poor people living on streets or people

fighting in riots anymore. We are a ‘One Singapore’ now.” (Mr. AY). Similarly, I believe that

this is where the first ideas of the necessity for control might have stemmed from. Though a

mere assumption, it is based on the notion that still today Singaporeans talk about gambling

23

and sex trading in a very denominating manner. Gambling is mostly spoken in addictive terms,

such that individuals who merely enjoy the act of gambling are all addicts and a problem for

society and its harmony. This leads me to believe that there was a time where such practices

and their negative effects on society, were at the center of social discourse and thereby used as

an argument against vast majorities of social freedom. My interview with Mr. AY also

highlighted this dependency as he explained that his story starts with the fact that his father was

a heavy gambler and therefore his family had to admit to bankruptcy in his early years. This

burden is characterized as the fuel to his success today and his admiration to the Singaporean

Government, as even though his family was “bad”, the Government aided them “to set their

path straight again” by providing them with financial aid and housing subsidies during their

darkest moments. Though this story portrays signs of paternalist leadership and arguably its

negative dependency factor, it remains a fact that it drove Mr. AY to success.

2.2.2. The Japanese Invasion

Some of the people I spoke to during my fieldwork argued that Singapore’s unlikely road to

independence started in Chinatown. In the early 1900s, Singapore simply represented a

workplace for trade of which three quarters of the population were Chinese (Turnbull, 2005).

The Chinese came to Singapore to escape famine and civil war back in main land China, and

“brought with them the first sparks of nationalism” (Turnbull, 2005). Many of them were

hawkers selling noodles from their stands and saw Singapore as merely a place to work where

few had actual plans to put down roots. Together with its open characterization, Singapore was

a port city vulnerable to the influx of political ideas from outside its borders.

On December 8th, 1941, Japanese forces landed in Kota Bharu in northern Malaya just moments

after their attack on Pearl Harbor (Turnbull, 2005). This moment in time was also the source

for the loss of trust in colonial power and the root for the longing of independence as the British,

are said to have defended Singapore halfheartedly (Blackburn, 2009). Hence, a national feeling

of abandonment, insignificance and major interest in the concept of survivability was born

(Blackburn, 2009). On January 31st, 1942, just 55 days after the start of their invasion, Japan

had conquered the entire Malay Peninsula. Singapore was renamed Syonan-to; the Light of the

South Island, and was to be occupied for the next three years (Turnbull, 2005). The Japanese

army was famous for having imposed harsh and strict measures against the local population

and with particular ruthlessness towards the Chinese population who were seen as “anti-

Japanese” and supporters of the war effort in China (Blackburn, 2009). As Lee Kwan Yew

24

(who at the time was known as Harry Lee) explains in his interview with the Discovery

Channel, he was one of the many Chinese men who had been rounded up for screening for the

purpose of identifying those referred to as “anti-Japanese”. Those who did not pass the

screening process would eventually be killed in mass executions. Once dug up, the mass grave

sites of these mass executions claimed to consist of up to 50 000 to 100 000 Chinese.

In an interview conducted by the Discovery Channel many years later, LKY explains that it

was a time of destruction, death, anxiety, fear and panic. He explains that his first thoughts at

the time were centered around getting rid of the Japanese who were seen as unbearable by the

local population, insufferable and cruel. He said it was an experience that changed the

Singaporean people forever. LKY characterized this time in history as; “a real life lesson of

what power means to the economy of a country and the lives of its people. That if you controlled

a country by force, and the lives of the people depended on you, you can make them comply,

and even change their attitudes to you, at least openly, and make them comply.” Moreover,

Blackburn (2009), strengthens this vision in his work “Recalling war trauma of the pacific war

and the Japanese occupation”, as he discusses some of the traumatic experiences with

individuals who lived through these times in Singapore. His work paints a very dark picture of

these times and I propose that it could be because of these horrific experiences that

Singaporeans today are overly concerned with survivability and in fear of another similar

invasion.

Interestingly, the above quote made by LKY could be interpreted in different ways. Lee Kwan

Yew characterizes his observations as a scenario of how power and fear can be used to control

a nation and change its people’s behaviors in an unnatural manner for the aim of compliance.

The effects of such an observation may be similar but also different depending on the

interpretation of it. On one side, one could argue that this is the point in time where LKY saw

how fear was used to gain power, control and compliance to benefit a country, its economy and

its people. Notably, such ideas would not be implemented to the same extent and harshness as

the Japanese had done so, but it could have possibly given ideas to the foundation of some of

his infamous practices during his leadership as Prime Minister some years later. As an example,

Lee Kuan Yew also addressed the value of fear in 1997 when he stated that “Between being

loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of

me, I’m meaningless”. Nevertheless, another idea of interpretation would be characterizing this

point in time as a significant moment where the notion of fear was born; the fear of invasions,

25

the fear of outsiders and a fear of outside factors destroying an economy. It is undeniable that

the scenes described during the Japanese occupation were anything less than horrifying, but as

some people say; it is not what you suffer but how you deal with that suffering that matters to

development. Some may argue that due to this hardship LKY and the Singaporean people

developed a strong fear of invasions and outside controlling powers but also that it might have

sparked an interest into using power and fear as a means for control and compliance. This is

also strengthened by the legacy of World War II presented as “an object lesson to present-day

Singaporeans to remain ever mindful of real and potential threats to the island’s sovereignty”

(Loh, 1998:9). As Goh Chok Tong, Singapore’s second prime mister, stated during the Iraqi

invasion of Kuwait in 1990 a warning that “history reminds us that a threat can arise

unexpectedly … Singapore was attacked and overrun in 1942 … by Japan, over five thousand

kilometers away” (Loh, 1998:9).

Eventually, on August 15th, 1945 the Japanese surrender to the Allies (Turnbull, 2005). After

years of immense bloodshed, and mainly of the Chinese local population, Singaporeans had to

stand by and witness the returning of the British, simply deporting the Japanese officials who

had committed these horrifying war crimes (Blackburn, 2009). Feelings of resentment from

Singaporeans towards the British continued to form. In an interview, LKY explained that: “it

was the catastrophic consequences of the war that changed the mind sets of my generation who

decided that, no, this does not make sense, we should be able to run this as well as the British

did, if not better.” He explains how the first thoughts of independence and self-governance

were sparked by the Japanese occupation and how his whole generation was forever scarred

with fear due to it.

2.2.3. The 1950s-60s Riots

In 1949, Singapore was once again influenced by outside factors. The victory of Mao Zedong

and the communist party in China was to send shockwaves throughout Asia (Turnbull, 2005).

The post-war and early independence periods of Singapore’s history are of greater importance

than the Second World War as the PAP have been able to effectively control this period of

history by limiting public access to government records on the one hand while making

themselves conveniently available to historians such as John Drysdale and Dennis Bloodworth

(Loh, 1998). As such, the events that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s in Singapore

“received considerable and even disproportionate attention in the public media” (Loh,

1998:10). As Loh (1998) explains, “by pre-empting alternative accounts of this period in the

26

nation’s past, the Old Guard has insured that the theme of national “fragility” is continued”.

Loh uses the example of John Drysdale’s commissioned book, which is premised on the

“political gullibility of Singaporeans with respect to communism and communalism” (Loh,

1998:10). He argues that it is the issues of “communist insurgency and communalist

factionalism” that formed “the duel threats to national sovereignty that the PAP claims continue

to plague the nation” (Loh, 1998:10). The scenes described during this period are a potent

reminder of Singapore’s “vulnerability” (Loh, 1998).

The People’s Action Party (PAP) of Singapore was formed in November of 1954 and

characterized as the coming together of two disparate groups of people; an English educated

group of moderates and a Chinese group of militants representing the working class. Even

though the two groups may have had ideological differences they had similar objectives to

achieve self-governance and political independence (Turnbull, 2005).

Nevertheless, these ideological differences became more apparent as time went on and caused

a decade of unrest and political instability. Between the 1950s and the 1960s, Singapore

experienced its first, and till now, the last, series of destructive riots (Turnbull, 2005). As the

research conducted for this thesis will show, many Singaporeans today, justify several of the

policies implemented by the Singaporean Government with reference back to these riots. The

people I spoke to during my fieldwork explained that some policies, such as the policy for

multiculturalism, deemed necessary and successful in limiting, if not eradicating, the

probability of such riots occurring again. Many informants have also referred to this point in

time as a time of anxiety and fear. It is therefore argued that the riots that occurred in Singapore

between the 1950s and 1960s are significantly important to the understanding of Singaporean

culture today, and its focus on harmony under the One Singapore Nation.

From December 11th till December 13th, 1950, Singapore experienced what is now known as

the Maria Hertog Riots (Straight Times, 2015). The riots were instigated when a court had

decided to return a child who had been raised by Muslim parents to her Catholic biological

parents. 18 people were killed and 173 were injured after three days of destruction, anger and

chaos. On April 23rd, 1955 the Hock Lee Bus workers’ strike began which escalated intensively

up until the 12th of May 1955. Four people died and 31 were left injured. According to a

documentary on Singapore’s History on the Discovery Channel however, Fong Swee Suan was

said to have instigated the strike as he was the leader of a bus workers’ union. After having lost

27

the elections in 1948, it was said that Suan and Siong were unhappy with the little progress the

PAP had made so far and aimed the strike at strengthening radical support. In October of 1956,

Singapore also witnessed the Chinese Middle School Riots where 13 people died and more than

a 100 were injured. These riots were once again instigated by factors such as the suppression

of pro-communist parties. Images of such riots portray large masses of people, mostly bloody

and filled with anger rushing the streets in search for safety or conflict (Turnbull, 2005). Such

images have also been used as a representation of some of the horrors caused by a divided

Singapore.

On the 21st of July 1964, Singapore experienced one of the severest of riots yet. 25 000 Malays

had gathered at Padang to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday when a policeman asked

a dispersed group to rejoin the large group and was answered with an attack. The attack quickly

escalated into a bloody scene of destruction and panic where 36 people were killed, 556 people

left injured and 3000 people were arrested. The scenes of that July 21st represent a day of horror

but also of disharmony. That is why, still today, July 21st is known as Racial Harmony Day.

The collection of these riots represents a time where disagreements and differences caused

severe disharmony and unrest for the whole of Singapore (Turnbull, 2005). A time where

people took to the streets to openly express hate for those who were different. According to one

of my informants, they represent a time that no Singaporean today is proud of but instead

satisfaction is expressed with the fact that such scenes have not repeated themselves since 1964.

Many informants argued that this is due to the government’s efforts in maintaining stability and

harmony through the policies it implements. Even though some may characterize contemporary

Singapore as a nation of strong political control, many Singaporeans do not seem to mind as

much, as they still remember the horrors of the series of riots that took place in history. Some

of the people spoken to during the fieldwork period of this thesis, characterized the causes of

the riots as intolerance to differences and therefore use it to explain the importance for racial

harmony and acceptance of differences. Although research has shown that the sources of

information regarding this period of time are definitely intentionally limited or simply biased

in favour of the PAP regime and legitimacy, I still consider them as an explanation to the kiasu

mindset. Though the details of the events may have been represented in distortive fashion, their

use towards the governance of control of the PAP and the insertion of fear and vulnerability in

Singaporeans mindsets is true. Every informant I spoke to refers to this period in history to

28

justify their fear of the unknown or of ‘outsiders’ and as such, I deem it a legitimate explanation

to the mindset of kiasuism.

2.2.4. The Malaysian Merger Attempt

The racial tensions that presented themselves during the period of riots were also the foundation

of discussions between the PAP and the Federal Government of Malaysia, on the topic of a

merger of Singapore with Malaysia during the early 1960s. At the time, it was a great dream

and goal of Lee Kuan Yew to see Singapore united with its big brother in the north (Drysdale,

1996). However due to several reasons the merger did not take place (Drysdale, 1996). The

reasons for separation can be explained as follows. The first being economical, was a

disagreement over a common market (Drysdale, 1996). Malaysia, who saw Singapore as an

economic threat, did not like the idea of an open and common trading market between the two

parties as it was afraid of Singapore’s significantly lower labor costs and the potential of its

trading port attracting power away from Kuala Lumpur. Moreover, despite previous agreements

at an attempt of an open market, Singapore still faced heavy trade restrictions when trading

with Malaysia (Drysdale, 1996). Secondly, politically, Singapore and Malaysia had different

policies and ideologies (Drysdale, 1996). Singaporean politics can be characterized as

multiracial and meritocratic. They believed in all races being equal and that everyone must

work for their rewards. Only those that work hard will be rewarded. On the other hand, Malaysia

was built on communal politics and the Bumiputera policy. Communal politics meant that

political parties were to be formed along Malaysia’s different racial groups, where every race

was represented by a different political party, clearly causing differentiation. Moreover, their

Bumiputera policy meant that the Malaysian Government gave special rights and privileges to

the indigenous, being Malays. These differences posed as too great of a threat and hence why

Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman managed to convince the Malaysian Federal

Government to expel Singapore at a conference on the 9th of August, 1965, at which Singapore

officials were not even invited to (Drysdale, 1996).

As Singapore became independent, once again affected by factors and decisions made outside

of their scope of control, LKY said; “I mean for me, it would be a moment of anguish because

all my life, you see the whole of my adult life, I have believed in Malaysia, merger and unity of

the two territories. You know it’s a people connect by geography, economics and ties of

kinship.” Unlike most independence days, Singapore’s independence was not necessarily a

moment of celebration. Singapore had been expelled and rejected by their closest ally and

29

brotherly figure. It was a country that felt betrayed, abandoned and fear for what was to come

next. Nobody knew how to make anything of this little island, without any resources at all, and

whose existence seemed insignificant to the rest of the world.

The selected scenes of Singapore’s history aim to represent a nation that came from nothing,

was abandoned by all those who had shown any forms of interest and forever vulnerable to the

uncontrollable influx of outside factors. Singapore’s national sense and hunger for survivability

can be understood and together with its significantly small, geographical size, it is therefore

seen as in constant state of vulnerability. It is such factors that allow for the understanding of

kiasu mindset and possible reasons to the national culture of fear. Nevertheless, it is also such

factors that strengthen the reasons to Singapore’s existence as a nation and the miracle to which

it is referred to as it grew from obscure tropical island into a great Asian tiger, all in one

generation.

2.3. The Singapore Government

Lee Kwan Yew is most commonly referred to as the founding father of Singapore. Many equate

the great success of contemporary Singapore with LKY’s efforts and leadership. After the

unexpected separation of Singapore from Malaysia, it was up to LKY and his political party to

build a forgotten and defeated nation into the great economic Asian tiger it is known as today.

Though LKY has been criticized for his authoritarian style of leadership and intolerance for

dissent, nobody seems to have any doubt in the fact that he was the one who made Singapore

what it is today.

The following section will elaborate on some of the more important governmental ideologies,

policies and implications that have helped shape contemporary Singapore. Some of the policies

and ideologies that will be covered in this section consist of; Singapore’s military defense

policy, its foreign talent and investment scheme, meritocracy and the implementation of

multiracialism as a policy. This section’s purpose is aimed at giving reason and characterization

to the environment and atmosphere in which my research takes place. Moreover, one must

acknowledge the implication of such policies on the shaping of Singapore’s culture of fear as

30

most of these policies are argued to have caused a highly competitive environment and with it,

the anxiety of being left out.

2.3.1. Singapore’s Armed Forces

After having achieved its involuntary independence in 1965, Singapore was left to fight for

itself. In 1965, its military consisted of only two infantry regiments, commanded by British

officers and made up mostly of non-Singaporean residents (Drysdale, 1996). A few months

later, Britain eventually pulled all its military out of Singapore, leaving it vulnerable and

abandoned. Singapore had been left to fend for itself by almost all its neighbors and all its allies.

It was therefore of the utmost importance for Singapore to establish a large, capable and yet

economically-efficient defense force (Drysdale, 1996). As such, it turned to a similar and small

nation who had also been left to fend for itself and also had a history of abandonment and

rejection; Israel. Singapore enlisted the covert assistance of Israel, which sent its military

advisers to help Singapore set up a defense force modelled in part after the Israel Defense

Forces. The Singapore Armed Forces was hereby formed in 1966 and are a great national

symbol that the nation proudly parades around on their national day, August 9th.

National Service in Singapore refers to the statutory requirement for all male Singaporean

citizens and second-generation permanent residents, to undergo a period of two years,

compulsory military services in uniform. These periods of service and training are most

commonly characterized by harsh and hard conditions and extremely strict discipline.

Nevertheless, the rationale behind these practices can be traced back to scenes in history where

the absence of the notion of belonging amongst Singapore’s local residents caused for a lack of

unity. It was very unlikely that the local residents of Singapore in the 1960s saw themselves as

a united front able to work together to defend their country. Most of these inhabitants did not

even consider Singapore their country yet. It was therefore of the utmost importance to provide

an environment and the right conditions for the common goal of unity. Moreover, after the

recent, long and horrifying series of riots caused by disharmony and intolerance amongst

Singapore’s races, ethnicities and religions, the government, and more specifically, LKY, saw

national service as a tool for harmony and unity (Drysdale, 1996). It is a common belief that if

you put a group of differentiable people together, under uncomfortable and oppressive

conditions that notions of unity and togetherness will be easier achieved. Similarly, unity and

harmony can be achieved by giving a group of people a common goal or a common enemy. As

such, the application of National Service in Singapore can be explained as one of the tools used

31

to foster a nation of harmony and togetherness, but most importantly, one of compliance.

Nevertheless, whether or not such policies and compulsory activities actually nurtured a feeling

of harmony is one of question. It can be argued that feelings of harmony cannot be imposed or

controlled by governments but in turn should be allowed to develop naturally. Whereas, others

might argue that such implication did not deem feasible given the pressure of time and the sheer

need to survive as a nation, Singaporeans today still debate on whether there is a harmonious

environment in Singapore or a tolerant one. Furthermore, such characterizations can be traced

back to kiasu culture as a distinct attribute of kiasuism is selfishness and the act of putting one’s

interests above all else.

2.3.2. International Trade and Foreign Talent Policies

International trade has been characterized as being part of Singapore’s identity since before

Singapore even became Singapore. Even at the time of Sir Raffles, the goal for Singapore’s

future was that of an international trading hub. Still today, one could argue that Singapore’s

economy and nearly everything that makes it what it is today, rests on international trade.

Though the elaboration of governmental policies clearly aimed at favoring international trade

and the influx of foreign talent is not deemed necessarily significant for the understanding of

this thesis, it is important to understand that such policies have initiated a feeling of resentment

amongst Singaporeans towards foreign workers in recent years and that it has been

characterized as one of the reasons to Singapore’s increasing Gini coefficient and notions of

elitism. Elitism in turn, deemed as a factor that fosters kiasu culture as success is understood in

terms of materialism, personal assets, social status and intellectual aptitude. Even though this

is a recognized problem, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has been quoted saying that;

“If I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini

coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off, because they will bring in

business, bring in opportunities, open new doors and create new jobs, and I think that is the

attitude with which we must approach this problem”. The author of this thesis therefore

assumes that though one can deduce a clear explanation to problems such a high Gini

coefficients present in contemporary Singapore, the benefits of attracting international trade,

investments and foreign talent are valued as greater than some of the disadvantages and

disparities that such policies may cause. Moreover, such statements as made by Lee Hsien

Loong, provide weight to the notion that economic power and development is Singapore’s

32

number one priority. Additionally, in a dialogue aimed to wrap up the two-day South Asian

Diaspora convention in 2011, Lee Kuan Yew said that; “For some time, the Singaporean has

felt the competition from talented foreigners. But these are people who have come here to

become our citizens and I am a firm believer that the more talent that you have in a society, the

better the society will grow. If Singapore depends on the talent it can produce out of three

million people, it’s not going to punch above its weight. So you’ve got to accept the discomfort,

which the local citizens fear they are competing unequally for jobs. It cannot be helped. But

without them, the jobs will not be there to begin with. So welcome talent and we’ll continue to

welcome talent.”. He continues to explain that the competition of foreign workers might

actually boost local talent as he characterizes foreign workers as people with a sense of hunger

for success and survivability. Once again, the importance of competition and the huger for

success are presented as the sole means to survivability. LKY’s speech gives way to the

characterization of kiasuism as he clearly points out that foreign citizens are an asset to

Singapore’s economy as they boost local talent due to competition. He explains that such drive

is what made Singapore survive all these years and that some Singaporeans today have

forgotten what it means to be poor and come from nothing, and therefore do not strive enough

for high achievements of success. It is argued that Singaporeans have become too comfortable

in their wealth and riches and forgotten what they went through as a nation to get where they

are today. As the section that follows will show, it’s the combination of prioritizing economic

power and development together with the priority of national harmony that can pose as

somewhat difficult for Singapore.

2.3.3. Meritocratic Singapore and Multiracialism as a Policy

The decision by the British to covert Singapore into a trading port in the early nineteenth-

century, generated a huge influx of workers from throughout the region and around the globe.

This migration yielded a diverse society, which has had a stable mix of 74 percent Chinese, 14

percent Malay, 9 percent Indians, and the last 3 percent of the population is made up of ‘Others’.

Historical events such as the racial riots that occurred between the 1950s and the 1960s, has

been one of the reasons for why LKY and his political party have perused an equality seeking,

meritocratic style of governance while simultaneously promoting multiracialism as a

fundamental national ideal. Since its independence, Singapore’s stated development philosophy

has posited that economic growth would produce improvement for all segments of the

population, and that with such improvements, interracial disparities eventually would dissipate

(Moore, 2000). Moreover, it is important to understand that at the time of independence,

33

Singapore was made up of migrant workers from diverse backgrounds who still did not consider

Singapore as home or have any conception of a Singaporean nation. It was therefore, that the

Singapore Government believed that the key to diffusing Singapore’s ethnic tensions and

creating a unified national identity, was an emphasis on multiracialism and meritocracy. Each

racial group was characterized as an equally important and distinct part of a nation that would

strive to ensure that success came on the basis of merit, rather than racial, ethnic, religious, or

cultural favoritism (Moore, 2000).

Meritocracy and multiracial policies are the foundation of contemporary Singapore and are

present almost everywhere in Singaporean society. Two examples that show how meritocratic

ideologies and multiracial policies present themselves in contemporary Singaporean society are

its educational system and its Ethnic Integration Policy for its Housing and Development Board

(HDB). Meritocracy can be broadly defined as a political system where people are rewarded

based on their skills, abilities and efforts (merit). The Business Dictionary defines meritocracy

as “governance by elites who deserve to wield power because they possess merit, which is

defined as intelligence plus effort, instead of by those who merely possess wealth or belong to

privileged classes. Subsequently, as presented in an article written by Russon and Schwab in

the International Business Times (2015), a meritocratic society, such as Singapore, has been

defined as a nation that values intelligence and aptitude above all else. This is mainly due to the

fact that intelligence and aptitude were equated as the single tool that would lead Singapore to

economic growth. Additionally, Singapore’s meritocratic system comes hand-in-hand with its

pragmatic ideologies. Pragmatism in Singapore can be seen in the tendency to adopt policies

that offer the best prospect of success, whatever their ideological credentials. It has developed

into the belief that policy can be justified if there exists an acceptable rational response. In

Chua’s (1995) words: “If a measure of social control can be shown to contribute to economic

growth, it is considered as necessary to survival per se and hence, ‘pragmatic’”. Economic

growth has on numerous times been presented as the best guarantee of social and political

stability necessary for the survival of the nation (Chua, 1995). It is therefore argued that one of

the factors that has caused Singapore to fall into a national habit of fear is due to success being

measured on a scale of merit and intellect. Such political efforts and control, once deemed as

the single, indispensable solution to ensuring Singapore a future has now been characterized as

the factor holding Singapore back in the race to a prosperous future.

34

Furthermore, the implications of maintaining a strict adherence to the ideal of a procedurally

equal meritocracy while simultaneously promoting multiracialism as a fundamental national

ideal, has caused for a large and controversial debate. Some argue that the two ideals may be

somewhat conflicting and that in actual fact meritocracy has been the cause of further disparities

amongst Singapore’s racial groups as well as the cause of elitism (Moore, 2000). A 1980 Census

showed that the dramatic economic boom of the 1970s had not affected all racial groups equally

and that actually, Malays were severely underrepresented in both the upper levels of the

educational system and in the high prestige, economically dynamic occupations (Moore, 2000).

It is therefore argued that, economic hierarchy in Singapore was characterized in terms of race,

with the Chinese on the top, the Malays on the bottom, and the Indians straddled in the middle

(Moore, 2000). This hierarchy was reflected in income, education, housing and virtually every

other social and economic category. Additionally, the persistence of such economic hierarchy

has led to strong social stigmas and stereotypes associated with race that according to my

personal experiences, are still present in contemporary Singapore. There seems to be a

penetrating belief that the Chinese are more intelligent, hardworking and economically astute

than other racial groups (Moore, 2000). Moreover, LKY has even been quoted saying that the

Chinese are a “race with an intense and exacting civic culture, which is conducive to economic

development and commercial ability” (Moore, 2000). In contrast, Malays are considered to be

generally lazy, unintelligent, and unambitious (Moore, 2000). Members of cabinet have been

quoted explaining that; “poor Malay economic performance was the result of a feudalistic

consciousness and from not having the spirit of hard work” (Moore, 2000). Similarly, Lee

explained that Hindus are the victims of a “relaxed culture that is incongruent with the values

that make economic development possible” (Moore, 2000). As such, though the ideology

behind the implication of meritocracy in combination with multiracialism has been given

meaning by Singapore’s Government as the inevitable solution in harmonizing and creating a

One Singapore, the actual reality of its implications is arguably somewhat different than

intended.

Subsequently, such debates have therefore been the cause of recent discussions about

characterizing Singaporean culture as racist. Nevertheless, it is the aim of this paper to explain

that such accusations are merely superficial and that characterizing Singaporean society as

racist or discriminative requires careful consideration of many other factors that are more

complex than simply a discussion about racial discrimination. Actually, this paper argues that

in order to grasp a full understanding of the implications at hand the discourse should be more

35

centered on notions of opportunity rather than notions of structural or social discrimination. It

argues that opportunities such as the ones that may present themselves to someone being born

into an upper-class and privileged family may have greater influences on social disparities

rather than the color of someone’s skin. Another example would be the chosen location of living

of an individual. Certain neighborhoods in Singapore consist of higher rated schools than other

neighborhoods. This implies that an individual’s choice of location for purchasing a house

would have more influence on their education and opportunities rather than the color of their

skin. Similarly, this debate does not seem to limit itself to the nation of Singapore, as there

seems to be a contemporary and strong ideological attachment to the desirability of procedural

equality. Beitz (1983), defines procedural equality as the principle where each citizen is to have

a fundamental right to an equal opportunity to influence the outcomes of the legislative process.

The logic presents itself in the way that if the rules are not the same for everyone the system is

simply ‘not fair’. However, as Moore (2000) explains, in multiracial, multiethnic, or otherwise

diverse societies, procedural equality often has come under fire when it has not yielded equality

of results. As such, a debate has developed arguing for a need for a more ‘fair’ meritocracy

rather than the ‘cruel’ meritocracy that may be present in Singapore today. Cruel meritocracy

has been characterized with inherited wealth, educational advantages, nepotism and benefits

from discrimination against other groups that does not truly reflect the talent and hard work of

all individuals (Moore, 2000). Instead, the counter argument proposes for a fair meritocracy

which dictates that societies should strive for “fair” equal opportunity in which inherited

advantages or disadvantages are compensated for or in other words; efforts should be made to

level the playing field for all individuals before competition begins (Moore, 2000). Though

ideologically appealing, difficult obstacles present themselves in the actual practical

application; as there is a difficulty of removing the socially entrenched advantages of the

privileged as well as there being a difficulty is assessing where stratification is truly merit based

given that any privileged group is likely to claim that the wealth distribution is fair.

Though this debate is significantly present in contemporary Singaporean society, the aim of

this paper deems it only significant enough to the understanding of some of the worries and

dissatisfactions amongst Singaporean people today. Moreover, the debate of a fair versus a

cruel meritocratic system is deemed as interesting because it gives representation to the

calculative obsessive attribute linked to kiasuism which is understood as constantly weighing

one’s gains and losses to others. The fact that such debates are present in contemporary

Singapore give way to a benchmarking society that is in constant competition with themselves

36

and obsessively concerned with self-development and measuring one’s success in comparison

to others. Nevertheless, as history also shows, such characteristics or attitudes of constant

competition do not necessarily give implication to kiasu culture as it is for them that Singapore

was able to become the miracle it is known for today. It is the development of such attitudes in

combination with a national sense of abandonment, rejection, anxiety and constant vulnerability

that developed further into the cultural phenomenon of kiasu.

2.4. Education in Singaporean Society

Parents are just one input. I would say the whole system is risk averse and has a

fear of failure. The whole education system has also been turning out well trained

technocrats, where it is drilled from young age, I mean the education system streams

very early. Now they are changing it slowly but it streams from grade 8, from 8th

grade you know if you are going to make it or not. Outliers are frowned upon and

so on. The government claims its changing. Yes, maybe it’s changing but the social

values in the system, I mean if you are not in a well-paying job or doing some family

business or whatever, if you suddenly want to be a dancer, it is not so accepted. And

it goes in many ways right. Even in relationships, same sex relationships are a

crime, and they are not changing that law any time soon, as an example. So, there

is rigidity in mindset and social values because they are very careful about

preserving the whole fabric. So even in housing boards there is a clear racial

requirement of how many people of each race need to be there.

(Segment from an interview with Mr. AK)

The questionable origins to the phenomenon of kiasu have also shown to have links to its

educational system as one of my informants expressed in one of his statements. As history

shows, in the early years of independence, one of the primary goals was to nurture a country

with basic literacy and numeracy skills (Drysdale, 1996). This was crucial for the nation to

develop well. However, it caused the society to become very focused on academic work. In

addition, at that time, academic talent was needed and this led to the development of the mindset

that the intelligent are of a higher standing. Similarly, Ho et al, (1998), refer to the Report of

the Advisory Council on Youths of February 1989, in which it was stated that the kiasu

mentality underlies Singapore youth’s attitude towards education, work and other aspects of

37

life, strengthening the fact that this cultural phenomenon is still very present in younger

generations. In education, the youth are reportedly examination-oriented with a lack of curiosity

for intellectual pursuit. Many people in Singapore today, like the Ho et al (1998), believe the

education environment present in Singapore today is not conducive for critical and creative

thinking. This is a view that is also shared amongst informants but the academics I spoke to

were convinced that it is only a matter of time before this will change for the better. A high

pressure, mainly from parents, to perform well has significantly been characterized (Ho et al,

1998). Moreover, the fact that there is a website titled, kiasuparents.com, enabling parents to

take extensive action in their children’s future is a clear example of such attitudes. In Ho et al,

(1998), it is thereby argued that, in a society that emphasizes elitism, success is perceived to be

narrowly defined in terms of school performance. Moreover, as informants also strengthened,

there is a distinct lack of idealism and enthusiasm in work, where job security is considered

important by many and people are generally not prepared to take risks nor venture beyond

boundaries of the island, symptomatic of the kiasu mentality.

As expressed by informants, parents have often been named as the agents of the education

system propagating kiasu behavior. In recent years, private tuition has, as a result, become a

multi-million-dollar industry (Ho et al, 1998). Ahmad (1992), in an article entitled “slaves to

education”, reported that in the early 1980s, 19 percent of the student population received

private tuition. A decade later, the figure had risen to more than 32 percent with students from

pre-primary to university level, paying more that S$200 million to private tutors. Upon asking

some of my informants why such actions were taken, they expressed the fear that their children

will lose out if they do not receive private tuition. Meritocracy in the context of the educational

sphere therefore presents an element of competitiveness that I believe lays the foundation for

kiasu mentality today. This idea was also strengthened by the research of Bedford and Chua

(2017), who’s qualitative research on 36 Singaporeans undergraduates found that students are

still heavily exam-oriented today and that nearly all of their participants described being

motivated by comparison with other students. Similarly, Bedford and Chua (2017:16), “suspect

that the government’s practice of placing extreme emphasis on grades in their own hiring

practices may contribute to students’ performance orientation”. They found that a “student’s

grades translate directly into the level of starting salary”, and “can thus influence a person’s

earning level for years” (Bedford & Chua, 2017:16). Moreover, they conclude that “the

recommendation for addressing kiasuism in the education system might also help to address

kiasuism with respect to entrepreneurship” (Bedford & Chua, 2017:16).

38

To conclude, this thesis argues that the collection of all these societal and environmental factors

is the cause for Singapore’s apparent kiasu culture and that efforts directed at eradicating such

factors would be time consuming. For as research shows, behaviors of kiasuism are not

confined within the boundaries of the island and whether this undesirable social behavior would

ultimately result in a self-fulfilling prophecy of a ‘national failure’ significantly depends on the

masses’ awareness and understanding of the causes and effects of kiasuism, but more

importantly, the fear that it embodies. I therefore argue that, it is important to give recognition

to the effects of kiasu attributed behaviors on talent development and to direct efforts to the

acceptance of failure and dispelling feelings of threat and animosity. For if one can accept

failure as a natural occurrence, then one can recognize failure as a learning opportunity and in

turn, grow and develop in larger lengths as compared to individuals who are not as forthcoming.

This chapter therefore proposes the understanding that though Singapore’s kiasu mindset might

have been a possible explanation to its existence and survivability, it is now developed into a

reason for its limitations in talent development and continuum of a prosperous future.

39

Chapter 3: The Kiasu Phenomenon

“Everything also I want, everything also must grab, everything also number one”

(mottos from Mr. Kiasu, a cartoon character created by Johnny Lau’s 1990 comic books)

3.1. Singaporean Kiasu

The portrayal of Singaporeans as kiasu and selfish, also known as the “ugly Singaporean

phenomenon” (The Economist, 1995), has raised the profile of kiasuism both locally and

abroad, and so became a concern to the government (Ho et al, 1998). The literal translation of

kiasu is “the fear of losing out” and originates from Hokkien, which is a Chinese dialect vastly

spoken in Singapore. The translation of kiasu can therefore also be understood as “the fear of

lagging behind in relation to one’s peers”. Though many authors agree with the literal

translation of the word, several attempts to redefining the term in recent years has resulted in

diverse translations of its meaning and an inconsistency in its conceptualization and

measurement (Bedford & Chua, 2017). Hwang et al (2002:75), for example, argue that kiasu

reflects “an obsessive concern with getting the most out of every transaction and a desire to get

ahead of others”. Additionally, in two follow-up studies in which they applied their measure of

kiasu, they emphasized that both facets of kiasu encompass “a desire to be ahead of others”

(Hwang, 2003:564) and “include a comparative competitive component that is directed at being

ahead of others” (Hwang & Arbuagh, 2006:9). The Australian Macquire Dictionary has in turn,

defined kiasuism as “an obsessive desire for the value for money hailed as a national fixation

in Singapore”. Moreover, in recent years the term has taken on a far broader local connotation

of “being afraid to fail”, “always wanting to be number one” and “always wanting bargains”

(Murray et al, 1996). This is also the idea portrayed by informants, who when asked to describe

characteristics in society that show kiasu behavior they explained examples, of how

Singaporeans que up for hours at stores with promotional or free products, or run ahead to block

seats on the MRT. Similarly, my own observation of how students reserve seats in public spaces

such as the library, for a whole day even if they only attend the space for a couple of minutes

was another observational example.

There is and always has been, since the notion of kiasuism came apparent in the early 1990s, a

debate regarding whether the phenomenon of kiasuism is to be depicted positively or

negatively. Some journalists like Chua (1989), characterize kiasuism as an attribute of diligence

and hard work to be on top of situations which in turn can lead to students putting in extra effort

40

into their work other than what is of required of them for example. Additionally, another study

by Ng et al (1997), showed that kiasuism leads students to more feedback seeking behaviors as

it is believed to enable them to get ahead of others. Similarly, Hwang et al (2002), used an

analysis of Confucian norms to equate kiasuism with a “highly competitive spirit” to suggest a

distinction between positive and negative kiasuism. In their distinction, they present positive

kiasu attitude in that it “reveals itself through diligence and hard work to stay on top of the

situation”, and a negative kiasu attitude “reveals itself through personal envy and selfish

behaviors” (Hwang et al, 2002:75). Nevertheless, in recent years’ connotations of the term have

often been presented in negative contexts. Moreover, as Ho et al (1998), present in their

quantitative research on kiasu behavior, there is no significant linear relationship found between

kiasu tendency and academic performance. A liner relationship was found with respect to kiasu

tendencies and satisfaction with ones achieved grades which showed that “the higher the degree

of kiasuism, the lower the satisfaction with one’s performance” (Ho et al, 1998). Moreover, as

expressed in Bedford and Chua (2017:4), “despite the consistent conceptual emphasis on

comparison”, a constant emphasize on comparison seems to be missing. They show that

although one might do research on coursework to get ahead of other students, a positive kiasu

trait, it might also be possible that such actions are “intrinsically motivated by interest in the

course material” or “desire to develop oneself regardless of what others are doing” (Bedford &

Chua, 2017:4). The authors therefore conclude that previous attempts of conceptualization and

the measurement of kiasuism, “focus solely on behavior, and do not address the motivation or

mindset of the behavior” (Bedford & Chua, 2017:4).

Moreover, Kagda (1993), refers to kiasu as the negative complement of competitiveness. Where

competitiveness is said to breed “a sense of drive and commitment”, kiasuism is argued to “stem

from greed and promotes envy and selfishness” (Kagda, 1993). With this comparison one can

understand that competition is leading to the desire to be the best, to be the number one, to be

unique and stand out from the crowd, whereas kiasu refers to simply the desire to be better than

others and is closely linked to the desire of “saving face” (Ho et al, 1998). Furthermore, Hwang

and Arbuagh’s (2006) study aims to equate kiasuism with the Chinese form of competitiveness

to examine its role in student’s feedback-seeking behavior. They conclude that positive

kiasuism and competitiveness are similar, except that “positive kiasuism focuses on the process

of achieving success while competitiveness focuses on its consequences” (Hwang &Arbuagh,

2006:21). Nevertheless, Bedford and Chua (2017), challenge this finding as they argue that that

the “competitive element” in their definition of positive kiasu is non-measurable, and instead

41

they could have measured this item by “emphasizing goal attainment and goal benefit” which

might have also been the explanation to the positive correlation found between competitive

attitude and positive kiasuism. Bedford and Chua (2017) develop their argument by

highlighting “Griffin-Pierson’s two form of competitiveness theory”, that differentiates

between “striving for a goal (goal competitiveness)” and “the desire to win over others

(interpersonal competitiveness)”. Together with their findings they therefore argue that, there

is “no evidence to distinguish positive and negative kiasuism” and that all forms of kiasuism

“include either explicit or implicit comparison” (Bedford & Chua, 2017:14). They conclude

that there is “only one dimension of kiasuism, which can range from negative to positive

outcomes” and that “the motivation for a behavior is the key to determining whether it is kiasu”

(Bedford & Chua, 2017). Similarly, an informant explained that: “When it comes to success

expectations are always high and that is why most people fall short in other people’s eyes. How

you appear to be is not always who you desire to be. People have ambitions but some of these

ambitions rise due to comparing themselves to others, or other expectations.”. My findings

therefore prove the argument made by Bedford & Chua (2017), as all my informants agreed to

the constant comparative element present in kiasuism and that it is the mindset that defines the

behavior.

Ho et al, (1998), take research a step further and aim to characterize kiasu behavior by its

attributes of selfishness, calculative obsession, greed and risk-aversion. The findings of their

quantitative study show that 96 percent of the term can be explained by the phenomenon of the

fear of losing out which refers to “an innate unwillingness to be disadvantaged or always

wanting to be ahead of others”. Furthermore, they argue that the phenomenon of selfishness,

being calculative, greed and risk-aversion are embodiments of the term and characteristics of

kiasu behavior. In effort to giving meaning to the motivations behind kiasuism, they argue that

kiasuism is “a learned human behavior that stems from the non-satisfaction of human desires”

(Ho et al, 1998:366). They link its existence to theories of unlimited wants and limited resources

and explain that it is due to “this inherent nature of human society”, that over time, “people

start to experience an urgency in their pursuit to satisfy needs” (Ho et al, 1998:366). This

strengthens that idea that I propose given my own research, that the development of kiasuism

is a product of societal and environmental factors.

Ho et al (1998:366), argue that with the development of money as a medium of exchange,

humans need to “exercise caution in seeking optimal ways of using limited purchasing power

42

to meet their long lists of demands”. Also, with time, the more cautious members of society

realized that certain objects of desire may be stored to meet future needs (Ho et al, 1998). Such

argumentations are also represented in my empirical findings as an informant explained that

many “Singaporeans are traders or originated from a trading mindset which in turn has made

it easier to engage in financial risk but not taking a creative risk of failure” (Interview with Mr.

AK). Moreover, he explained that it is due to this trading history that Singaporeans are very

practical with a transactional approach to business but now also to life. The uncertain world

which we live in tends to breed a sense of insecurity so intense thus leading to an obsession

which prompts amassing for the sheer pleasure of the act, greed. Additionally, Ho et al (1998),

explain that with limited resources to meet all wants, “it is inevitable that some members of

society have to experience unsatisfied demands”. Thus, for those who had initially exercised

consideration in favour of fellow members, finding their favors unreciprocated, would likely

soon find themselves being advocates of selfish behavior (Ho et al, 1998). The arguments in

this thesis therefore propose that all the described behaviors linked to kiasuism – the fear of

losing out, selfishness, being calculated, greed and risk aversiveness, are by nature, general and

could therefore be found in any geographical region, across any time horizon, regardless of

culture and social background (Ho et al, 1998). Similarly, examples of kiasu behavior have

therefore been recognized to exist in several other cultures around the world as Sherstyuk

(2014), points out kiasuism can also be seen in Russia where their word for kiasu is Zhlobstvo

which denotes a combination of both rude and greedy behavior that permeates, lamentable

many aspects of Russian life. Though arguably relevant to the scope of this thesis, one should

recognize the broad and complex connotations of the kiasu phenomenon and its different and

distinct representations.

Today, my informants have characterized the kiasu mindset as behaviors that cause for extreme

hard working attitudes, commitment and dedication but also impede individuals from venturing

outside of the boarders, being creative and seeking innovative possibilities. Due to fear of the

unknown or the fear of failure taking “new”, unforecastable risk, is not common in Singapore.

UC: I do not feel Singaporean because I do not think I am like a normal

Singaporean. I had a lot of experience. I tend to be … I have traveled a lot, I have

learned a lot from others, and because of this I feel that I am more international

than Singaporean. I am Singaporean, I have the attributes of commitment, ethics,

clarity, hardworking-ness from the base core culture, but I do not conform. I think

43

I am more of a person that thrives in creativity, thrives in asking questions, and also

trying to I improve everything that I can. So yeh I think I am more international that

way.

Singaporeans are do-ers. They do not question. Once you assign a certain task to

them and a KPI to them, they will do it as best as they can to achieve the maximum

KPI. Singaporeans tend to be also very structured in their ways. So if I were to go

from point A to point B, you will definitely see a system or protocol in place. They

don’t necessarily go from point A to point B, they will go in a linear way, versus my

way would be somewhat of a wave, could be even a 360 degree turn before I make

my way back. Singaporeans also work very hard. Very long hours, which is not

acceptable to me.

As Mr. UC describes the well-known Singaporean character of working hard and commitment

he also portrays himself as an individual who falls outside of his definition of being Singaporean

as he is not afraid to venture outside the boarders of his nation and to find multiple ways of

achieving a goal. Characteristics such as venturing outside of Singapore, or going against the

grain or seeking other opportunities are attributes that have been linked to the importance of

leadership, as well as, limitations that Singaporean leaders face in terms of their leadership

readiness today (DDI, 2015). Similarly, in Arup Varma’s book on “Managing Human

Resources in Asia-Pacific” (2013: 213), Khatri et al (2013), explain that predominant human

resource challenges for Singaporean companies are: “chronic employee turnover/job hopping,

…, training and development, management of Singaporeans working abroad, and overhauling

management systems that can sustain a high-value added knowledge-based service economy”.

Singaporeans “lack of global exposure and appearing reluctant to overcome it” (The Straight

Times, 2015), has been a hot topic of discussion in recent years and used by authorities,

academics, and informants linked to this study, as the prime example of how kiasu mentality

can impede the development of global leaders in Singapore and its goal of achieving a

competitively attractive, “knowledge based economy”. The link between kiasuism and global

leadership development limitations is explained in the next chapter.

44

Chapter 4: The Leadership Lens

The following chapter represents the application of kiasuism on the development of global

leaders in Singapore. By combining the findings of the fieldwork and the foundation of

literature, I attempt to characterize the apparent global leadership gap in Singapore, together

with a representation of some leadership practices present in the private sector. Throughout the

analysis of literature and the empirical findings, I developed the perspective on kiasu as a

hindrance on global leadership development efforts, as the factor of fear and insecurity rejects

innovation, collaboration and generosity.

Leadership and its development has for centuries been characterized as a vital necessity for

good organizational productivity, as well as economic development for a nation as a whole.

Whether contextualized in a private or public sphere, leadership training and development can

maximize productivity, shape a positive culture and promote harmony. As, LKY once put it;

“The quality of a nation’s manpower resources is the single most important factor determining

competitiveness. It is the people’s innovativeness, entrepreneurship, team work, and their work

ethic that gives them that sharp keen edge in competitiveness” (Juma, 2013). Therefore, the

Singapore openly recognizes human capital and its development as the single and most

important asset in which Singapore can maintain its competitiveness and continuum of a

prosperous future. Additionally, as expressed by the DDI (2015), “leadership has never been

more important to the future sustained growth and competitiveness of the country. The recent

global financial crisis has shown that to prosper, Singapore needs to rapidly adapt and

embrace innovation-led productivity. Excellence in leadership is a fundamental prerequisite as

Singapore continues its journey of growth and prosperity”. The above quote also highlights yet

another example of the importance the Singapore government has attached on competitiveness,

innovation, togetherness and strong work-ethic.

Additionally, current Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong strengthened this fact in

his speech at the 2009 Human Capital Summit where he stated;

45

“Corporations need talent. Successful firms are those which value, develop and take

full advantage of their human capital. They vie with one another to recruit the best

university and business school graduates, and the most enterprising and promising

staff of their competitors. Companies in Asia urgently need to grow and enhance

their human capital. The region needs talented individuals who understand Asian

cultures and societies, and yet possess a global orientation. Nations need talent too.

Many countries, regardless of whether they are well endowed with natural

resources, rightly recognize the importance of expanding their talent pool. For a

small country like Singapore, acquiring and nurturing human talent is a matter of

survival. Without much of anything else, we rely on human ingenuity and effort to

build our economy and society. We have therefore made major investments in

education, lifelong learning and talent development. We must be at the forefront of

human capital development, so that people see this as a place to stretch and achieve

their potential. And we should develop human capital not just for Singapore, but for

the whole of Asia. After all, Singapore is at the cross-roads of Asia.”

As one can see from the above quote, human capital and its development is recognized as

crucial for survival both for corporations and for Singapore as a nation. Mr. Lee Hsien Loong

reinforces the fact that human capital is Singapore’s only resource and means to remain

competitively ahead of competitors, as well as, economic and social demands. Moreover,

though subtle, his word choice is also one to comment on, as one can clearly distinguish words

as, ‘best university and business graduates’, ‘competitors’, ‘need for global orientation’, and

‘human talent is a matter of survival’. Such choice of words strengthens the foundation of my

research and bring forth the argument that Singaporeans have on numerous accounts been made

aware of the great significance of educational achievements as to stay ahead of their

competitors, that Singapore must focus on survivability, and most importantly, that to do so,

they need global leaders. Similarly, in the article of Khatri (1999), titled “Emerging issues in

strategic HRM in Singapore”, the author highlights the shortcomings of human capital in

Singapore. He explains that “companies in Singapore under-practice strategic HR activities in

two important areas: recruitment/selection and training/development” (Khatri, 1999:517). The

author suggests that “HRM in Singapore is not a particularly well managed function, and given

the competitive environment companies in Singapore face now, they will contribute to their

own demise by ignoring the vital role of strategic HRM” (Khatri, 1999:517). My findings

suggest that the reasons to high employee turnover and the lack of top managers in Singapore

46

can be explained by the kiasu mentality is Singaporeans today, and before focus is turned to

strategic HRM practices, one must understand the mindset of its human capital.

4.1. Singapore’s need for Global Leadership

As the previous section shows, my research started with the knowledge that there is a strong

focus and somewhat concern, for the development of global leaders in Singapore. The struggle

has been presented in the context of the globalization phenomenon and linked with the

consequence of the “global leadership gap”, where contemporary Singaporean leaders are

expected to function effectively in cross-border contexts with contrasting economic, political,

and cultural practices (Avolio et al, 2009). As a result, careful selection, grooming, and

development of leaders who can operate effectively in a globalized environment is a pressing

need for Singapore as a nation and its organizations (Avolio et al, 2009).

Academics have defined global leaders as leaders who are responsible for preforming their job

responsibilities and accomplishing their individual goals but within a unique context compared

to other leaders (Rockstuhl et al, 2011). The recent expressed need for global leadership can be

explained by an increase in diversity in the workforce, talent mobility and a rise in technology

(Rockstuhl et al, 2011). Contemporary organizations are significantly characterized by an

increased diverse workforce. Not only can this be defined in terms of cultural backgrounds but

also in terms of age and gender. For example, due to factors such as globalization, organizations

experience a more culturally diverse workforce but also a workforce where nearly four different

generations work side by side with each other. It is therefore a leader’s challenge to listen,

understand and address the different attitudes, preferences, expectations and needs of each

generation and each culture within their workforce. Furthermore, in today’s economic

environment, organizations have experienced an increase in the demand for the global mobility

of talent as new markets have emerged. Together with the rapid rise in technology, this too

represents a demand driving factor for global leadership (Blain, 2012).

Upon examining the Leadership Readiness report presented by the DDI in 2015, one can

understand why Singapore’s leaders have been characterized by this leadership gap. Leadership

readiness is said to fall into the five categories of; “driving growth through local and global

expansion, driving operational efficiency and profitability, cultivating innovation, enhancing

47

customer relationship and focus and lastly, engaging and inspiring people” (DDI, 2015). For

three of these five categories, Singapore has been characterized as “not ready” and in need of

development. Upon receiving this report from one of my gatekeepers, I decided to use it as a

tool of discussion during some of my interviews with Singaporean business leaders. All of them

agreed with the findings and upon asking them whether “a kiasu approach to life” could pose

as an explanation to the image depicted by such reports, they argued that of course such

depictions are too vague and not an exact representation of the whole but they did agree with

such depictions in comparison to other their experiences they had had.

Firstly, when it comes to driving growth, both through local and global expansion, Singapore

is said to not to be ready as the analysis of the DDI shows that, “critical underlying

competencies such as entrepreneurship, global acumen, and business acumen” are considerably

rated lower in comparison to other global players (DDI, 2015). Though a clear understanding

of the terminology or methodology are not presented the understanding shows the perspective

of the global market. Moreover, the decision to use the information presented in this report is

based on the fact that it strongly represents the discourse amongst business leaders and policy

makers in Singapore today. With a strong focus on driving operational excellence, leaders in

Singapore are portrayed as being “less inclined to pursue new and ground-breaking

opportunities” (DDI, 2015), as was also expressed by all my informants. The understanding is

that venturing out or engaging in ground breaking opportunities poses as too much of a risk to

engage with, and is one of the reasons to the scarcity of entrepreneurship in Singapore. The

emphasis on “driving efficiency and predictability” seems to have “driven a more conservative

and internally focused culture” (DDI, 2015). The report argues that this position contrasts with

“Singapore’s ‘early days’, which were largely built on a foundation of entrepreneurship where

migrants at that time were attracted by the bustling commerce and trading activities in

Singapore and thus decided to settle and set up their family businesses” (DDI, 2015). They

argue that “focus and energy has been invested into achieving excellence and at the cost of

confidence and generosity”. This argument was similarly strengthened by informants who

explained the observation that Singaporeans seem more preoccupied with “self-gain” and

enhancing their status in society rather than thinking for their organization as a whole.

Secondly, when it comes to “the cultivation of innovation”, Singapore leaders have often been

characterized as more risk-averse and cautious which is in parallel to the attributes associated

with kiasuism in Ho et al (1998). Research studies have suggested that they are less inclined to

encourage or inspire a culture of creativity (DDI, 2015). This appears to be supported by their

48

data which suggests that Singaporean leaders are less likely to drive change, challenge existing

paradigms, or embrace new ideas presented by others (unless presented by more senior leaders)

(DDI, 2015). Similarly, in Ng’s article (2012) titled, “The quest for innovation and

entrepreneurship in Singapore: strategies and challenges”, they highlight that; “innovation and

entrepreneurship are complementary strategies that help organizations, in this case a city-state

like Singapore, to succeed and sustain themselves in a dynamic world” (Ng, 2012:339).

Relating to a study survey of Chief Executive Officers and employers in Singapore, the author

states that “young graduates in Singapore have the tendency to stick to tried and tested ways,

and are reluctant to take risks and try new things” (Ng, 2012:339). It is therefore suggested that

there was a need for a mindset change amongst Singaporeans to be “less conventional and more

enterprising” as this was seen as “a major economic weakness” (Ng, 2012:339). In line with

this research, informants have related this lack of creativity to the Singapore kiasu mindset,

which they argue might discourage people from taking risks and stepping away from the

familiar. Informant, Mr. AK explained that “Singaporeans’ somewhat-pragmatic and task-

based approach is often at the expense of subtler interpersonal nuances that help connect with

and engage employees”. This is also seen as a reason for why Singaporeans are reluctant to take

innovative and creative risk, as informants explained that the fear lies in ‘failing’ and the

“negative image or status” in the eyes of a manager or family member. Others, like Cheng

(2007:145) describe this behavior as “Singaporeans being afraid to take themselves out of their

comfort zone” which informants aimed to explain as a fear being rooted in failure and

insecurity.

In addition to “the core people-management skills required to effectively grow and develop

staff”, the DDI (2015) highlights Singaporean leaders lack of skills necessary to create and sell

a compelling vision of the future. It is argued that they might be able to communicate credibly

and confidently about their business plans, they might not create the necessary enthusiasm or

energy to engage and inspire employees. Lack of communication and persuasion skills is also

a topic expressed by some of my informants. For example, Mrs. EY once explained the

argument to me, in reference to the Jonathan Demme’s movie, “The Silence of the Lambs”:

In Silence of the Lambs, it’s about this terrible criminal who is into cannibalism

but he is also incredibly smart right? And there is this scene, where they wheel him

into the court room and he is in this straight-jacket, and they take off his mouth piece

or muzzle to let him talk and then he speaks, and he says things that are so

49

intelligent, and everyone is in awe, and then they put the mouth piece back on and

they wheel him out, and everyone just sits there looking at each other like they didn’t

understand what he just said, and then they go on with their lives. That is exactly

how Singaporeans are. We can be very smart, we come in, we don’t speak the

language, we don’t manage the expectations of the people who are listening to us,

then we say something really intelligent that makes sense, and then we walk out,

and the people left, understand that it kind of makes sense but they don’t know how

to apply it. And that is one of the reasons why there is this perception that we are

not global enough.

Singaporeans are known for their hard skills, for knowing theories, or as other’s like to call it,

‘book smart’. Yet it is the translation of this intelligence to their followers or audience that is

where the apparent problem lies. Communication is a very important attribute of effective

leadership, and as YF points out, if one cannot present, or articulate their message, then they

will not be able to inspire and without inspiration, one is not a leader. One needs the ability to

inspire his followers to be a good leader.

The analysis, data and interpretation as presented by the DDI is helpful towards the

understanding as to why Singapore is facing a leadership gap. Though the actual existence of

kiasu as a national culture and fact of Singapore is one hard to prove and neither discussed, the

actual attributes linked to kiasuism such as risk-aversion, selfishness or calculative obsession

can each be correlated to the personality patterns presented by the DDI in terms of Singaporean

leaders. It is therefore my argument that kiasu mentality and the attributes related to it can be

linked to the limitations expressed by members of society today. Moreover, such ideas and

‘facts’ are not only limited to organizational surveys as local universities have also focused a

lot of research and understanding to the limitations discussed. The Singapore Management

University for example, has also published an article titled “Closing the leadership gap in Asia”

(2013) in which they identify the root cause of Singapore’s “leadership gap” as a “failure to

build a robust cohort of qualified leaders and a healthy leadership pipeline”, which is said to

cause “organizations in the region the struggle to recruit and retain enough leaders to keep seats

filled”. The author summarizes the challenges as: (1) Leaders lacking key leadership

experiences and skills, (2) Leaders being disenfranchised and disengaged, and (3) Leaders

posing chronic departure risk. The first and the last challenge were also proven by my findings.

Informants expressed that leadership is most significantly taught and learned through

50

experiences which they argue are best to obtained abroad as the argument is that Singaporean

leaders lack global exposure as they are less inclined to travel beyond geographical boarders.

Moreover, in respect to the last challenge mentioned, informants strengthened this argument

with their experience of Singaporeans lack of commitment to organizations and high employee

turnover.

In a fragment of my interview with Mr. BK, he argues some of the cultural characteristics that

have caused Singaporean’s to fall behind in the race to global leadership. He explains that the

phenomenon of the gap is due to the fact that those who are now ‘leading’ come from a

generation that was raised with a very different mindset and environment to what younger

Singaporeans might feel now. It is a very interesting point as my vision of the so called ‘kiasu

problem’ is that the kiasu mentality is what made Singaporeans work together to raise an

obscure tropical island into an economical power hub. Yet today, it is almost as if the mindset

of the people has not transformed fast enough with respects to the demands and expectations of

the economy.

BK: Especially for Singapore, we do not have a lot of global leaders in all fairness.

We can be successful locally, but not so much in the global spectrum/front. I do not

think it will be a problem that would continue. But I also attribute that to how we

were educated. People at my age right now would be those that would be leading

and how this generation was brought up was very structured. You don’t ask a lot of

questions, you just follow. So, less outspoken. We are less trying to get out of the

norm and to do something different. Definitely Singaporeans do not have the ability

yet. We are not as media savvy, we are not out there and that’s very different than

for example an Indian national. Their schooling system, as far as I have been made

aware, they are encouraged to debate from a very young age and therefore if you

look at CEO of banks when they are taken over by Asians they are all Indians here

in Singapore.

We are though going into a time where people are starting to be less reserved. The

old Chinese Asian culture, we do not want to be seen to be too flashy and that’s

always there. You know it’s considered a virtue and you just don’t do that. Slowly

though we learn that it does not really work. Be humble but yet you need to be able

to sell yourself as well.

51

Mr. BK hints on the fact that something holding Singaporeans is their lack of outspokenness.

Arguably this lack of outspokenness can be understood as the kiasu attribute of risk

aversiveness and the fear that asking questions, or simply speaking one’s thoughts can not only

discredit one’s position but most importantly, it could help others to gain insight and advantage.

A reference is made to old Chinese culture as a reason to this habit, and as an old Chinese

proverb goes; “Guard your mouth as though it were a vase, and guard your thoughts as you

would a city wall.” (Hwang et al, 2002). This also goes in line with the depiction made by

Hwang et al (2002), in their differentiation between kiasu-positive and kiasu-negative attitudes

in student feedback seeking behaviors. They define kiasu positive as attitudes that may lead

students either put in more effort as to gain an upper hand over others and kiasu negative as

attitudes that cause one to act in ways to prevent others from getting ahead of them. It is

explained that such attitudes can be traced back to Chinese culture through the explanation that

“the notion of face permeates every aspect of interpersonal relationships in Chinese culture

because of the culture’s overarching relational orientation” (Hwang et al, 2002). They

conceptualize fear as having two aspects; lian (face) and mianzi (image). Lian is maintained by

following societal norms, whereas mianzi is one’s personal reputation that is derived from

success. It is argued that one should fear losing lian and do whatever is expected by society to

keep lian. In turn, success in education or career leads to becoming recognized by others and

acquire prestige which thereby leads to an increased mianzi, a desirable state (Hwang et al,

2002). They explain that the pressure to maintain lian by conforming to social expectations and

to increase mianzi through better education or career accomplishments has created a highly

competitive spirit and that this spirit has been given the label of kiasu (Hwang et al, 2002).

Whether Singapore’s culture, private sector or simply its leaders are in fact characterized as

kiasu is one hard to prove and outside the scope of this thesis. Nevertheless, what is deemed as

significant is the recurring pattern of kiasu attributes that has clearly penetrated all aspects of

society. Based on the body of material analyzed, one understands the importance of human

capital development and its leaders. Moreover, given the context of Singapore, it has been

shown that given certain personality and behavioral patterns, that Singapore’s leaders are

limited in their race for a chair at the global leadership table. It is my understanding that though

economists, policy makers or other theorists might attain satisfaction in labeling such patterns

with the cultural phenomenon of kiasu, efforts should rather be directed towards the

understanding of the attributes related to kiasu culture and its adverse effects on human capital

52

development but also to a larger scale of social transformation. The understanding of the fear

that lies at the heart of kiasuism is the variable deemed for exploration. I believe that though

many institutions, governments and other parties are continuously focused on economic

development of nations, regions and the world, they must also, always, pay as close of an

attention to societies and the people they encompass. It is hard to imagine economic

transformation without social transformation and especially in the fast moving and globalized

economy of today.

53

Chapter 5: Discussion and Limitations

5.1. Discussion

This section is aimed towards a discussion of the kiasuism and its effects on global leadership

development. Given the data, I do perceive the development of global leadership as a crucial

aspect to the continuum Singapore’s prosperous future. Nevertheless, I do not believe that such

necessities are limited to the boarders of Singapore. Work by Avolio et al (2009), show that the

need for global leaders is a universal need and is argued in the context of the effects of

globalization such as the minimization of spaces. As countries come closer together in the

global economy so do their people and Singapore represents a place where such needs are more

significant as the workforce is one of the most differentiated in the world when it comes to

cultures, ethnicities, generations and nationalities. It is therefore more important to develop

leaders with multi-purpose leadership styles able to act over a variety of different people in

unique contexts. Moreover, I would also like to highlight that a lot of the “limitations and

challenges” present by Singaporean discourse in relation to their “leadership gap” is relative. I

propose that it is not beneficial to understand behaviors in relation to other nations or cultures.

Rather, one should focus on the behaviors of Singaporeans in the context of Singapore and aim

their focus to the origins and motivations of such behaviors as that will allow one to better

understand the repercussions within the local context.

Therefore, to answer the central question of the limitations of kiasu mentality on global

leadership development in Singapore I will refer to the three sub-questions aimed at laying out

my research findings. Firstly, the understanding of kiasuism as a phenomenon generated out of

insecurity and the fear of losing out can be traced back to environmental, historical and social

factors. Singapore’s vulnerable size and historical past with abandonment can explain why the

nation was born out of fear and rest in this insecurity. Moreover, as the nation developed the

political party used such insecurity and fear towards control and imposed the priority of

educational excellence, efficiency and pragmatism. I do believe we can understand kiasu from

these factors and how one can learn to manage the fear of losing out. Though some like Kirby

et al (2010), argue that because of similar factors kiasu is understood as “tactics” or “a set of

conscious behaviors” designed to achieve a desired goal. I do not agree with his philosophy as

54

my experiences have shown me that such behaviors are not conscious. Instead, upon asking

informants why Singaporeans are risk-averse, they initially answered with simply “because we

are kiasu”. Though a vague and misleading answer it does show the difficulty in expressing

exactly what kiasu is as further questions directed to its understanding, only resulted in literal

translations or examples of its manifestations in everyday lives. Therefore, I do not perceive

kiasu a set of controlled and conscious behaviors but more as a popular mindset that has formed

out of the fear and insecurity of losing face or reputation in Singaporean society.

Also, efforts aimed at the understanding of what it truly means to be a Singaporean showed that

every individual in Singaporean society tends to describe their national identity in a different

manner. Though I still cannot truly give definition to the identity, one thing that was apparent

was the characterization of Singaporeans as kiasu. As strengthened by the recent research of

Bedford and Chua (2017), kiasu is still the most identified term to represent Singaporean

culture. Informants gave shape to a characterization of individuals who measure their success

in comparison to others which leads to ambitions rising and thereby the natural occurrence of

falling short to those ambitious goals. Moreover, some informants expressed Singaporeans as

adaptable due to their history forever being controlled by the uncontrollable outside factors and

therefore generating the need and ability to survive. Nevertheless, this argumentation was

counter argued by others who expressed that there is a difference been adaptability and being

compliant. Where adaptability can be seen as a change in behavior, belief or attitude as result

of outside factors such group influences or the simple need for change at the risk of extinction,

compliance is seen as a behavioral conformity in order to achieve rewards or evade

punishments. I therefore argue that Singaporeans may change behaviors or attitudes not because

they personally believe in the cause but more due the demands of authority figures, such as the

government or parents. The only difference now is that the issue has arisen due to more

Singaporeans questioning their compliant behaviors in accordance with the reasons presented

by the government. Similarly, through extensive research in attributes associated with kiasu

behavior, it is shown that kiasuism is attributed with notions of selfishness which strengthens

the argument, as Singaporeans are characterized as only engaging in activities that deem as

beneficial to their own personal goal and not for reasons to benefit a larger cause such as the

well-being of a nation for example. Another example is the national preference of the use of

KPIs in all spheres of society. As many informants point out, success and performance are often

measured in terms of KPIs achieved which presents itself as a double edge sword. Though many

agree that the use of KPIs is somewhat beneficial for the scope of Singapore as it is the simplest

55

and clean cut form of knowing if an organization is meeting its targets and thereby operating

efficiently and effectively which can be relatively hard in an economy as fast passed as

Singapore, it has been characterized as an impediment on growth, creativity and innovation.

Again, such understandings can be portrayed in the scope of Singapore’s educational system,

where students are expressed as examination-oriented in which they will only engage in

activities or efforts as to enhance their grades rather than for simply enhancing their personal

knowledge and development. This can in turn be explained in terms of Singapore’s highly

competitive and regulated society which has posed as one of the explanations of such behaviors.

One can therefore argue that the fear of failure is a dominant attribute to a competitive and

regulatory society as Singapore as research showed that kiasuism is not exclusive to

Singaporean society. Nevertheless, to this day, it is the only society which clearly expresses

such behaviors as a cultural roadblock to social transformation.

Secondly, efforts aimed to the characterization of Singapore’s human capital scene and its

apparent limitations shows the importance of Singapore’s human capital as the sole and vital

tool to its success. Moreover, the limitation of its leaders lacking in global orientation and

cultural intelligence is apparent. Though, characterized solemnly within the scope of

Singapore’s private sector, initial observations of the lack of Singaporean nationals at the head

of large corporations in Singapore is a symbol that the limitations to Singapore’s human capital

are realistic. Moreover, the discussion with informant Ms. SZ, who works on a government

funded project aimed at developing more “Asian Leaders”, shows that this limitation has

become significant enough also in the eyes of the government to spend energy directed to such

efforts. Additionally, data and analyses presented by the DDI Leadership Readiness report gave

insight as to what personality and behavioral patterns of Singaporean managers are deemed as

reasons to Singapore’s global leadership gap.

Characterizations of Singapore employees have shown that they are extremely hard working,

obtain high IQ results, have a good sense of ethics and are extremely humble. Though they are

sometimes characterized as only being committed to their individual goals, their goals usually

align to what is the societal norm which still allows them to be seen as committed individuals.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that they are characterized as being organizationally loyal, as

their loyalties tend to lie with their families and directed towards gaining success and security

rather than dedicating themselves to the good of an organization. This argument was also

supported upon asking all of my informants if they would opt for relocation given that their

56

employee benefits would increase, to which the majority answered; “if I can bring my family

with me and I have thought about it clearly, yes, probably”.

Most significantly to the scope of this thesis, Singaporeans have been characterized as living in

a constant state of fear and anguish by the majority of informants. Fear is seen in terms of risk

taking behaviors where Singaporeans do not so much fear financial risks as they do creative

risks. Also, due to a national state of insecurity, led by societal beliefs but also due to repetitive

statements made by the government hitting on its existence, most Singaporeans are in constant

fear that they will not succeed in their society but also that their society might perish.

In terms of their race to obtaining global leaders and getting ahead of neighboring and

competing economies, it is said that it is this fear that is hindering their goal. Obtaining global

leaders is presented in combination with cultural knowledge and global orientation and on a

number of accounts, Singaporeans have been characterized as reluctant to experiences that

might help them gain this knowledge, such as venturing outside the boarders of their island.

Singaporeans are therefore characterized as “practical and transactional people” who happened

to have grown up in a “fast moving cocoon”. That is why it is argued that their risk aversion is

not to be characterized so much in terms of financial risk because to a certain extent one can

control such factors and aim efforts to activities such as forecasting. Instead their reluctance in

engaging in risky activities is expressed as a cause to Singaporeans lacking global orientation

in comparison to leaders from other backgrounds which in turn leads to hindrance in their goal

to achieving successful global leaders and with it, a continuum of a prosperous future.

Another example of this fear of the unknown and willingness to “prepare” for a future risk, is

a recollection of my own experience upon arriving in Singapore. As I attempted to find a

residence in Singapore I was always first asked what my race was and I experienced an open

discourse about ethnicity and how being a certain race might justify someone’s behavior.

Though such statements are characterized as being racist in certain cultures, I experienced it as

less negative. As I discussed this observation with informants I learned that Singaporeans

behavior of asking one’s race is in attempt to ‘prepare’ themselves for the person’s behaviors

and values. In effort to understand how an individual will react or behave, Singaporeans attempt

to define it by their ethnicity. Though such logic may not seem plausible in Europe for example,

because most Europeans are all Caucasian and cultural behaviors are more determined by one’s

nationality, in Singapore it does work to some extent. The assumption as to why or rather, how

57

it was explained to me by informants was that, the ethnicities present in Singapore’s

demographic are very telling towards what food they would consume, which national holidays

they would celebrate and their family-orientation. As such, it became apparent that

Singaporeans do strive to overcome ‘failure’ or ‘risky’ situations as much as they can as I

experienced a constant need for “preparation” amongst my Singaporeans friends and

informants.

Third, to answer the question of the effects of kiasu mentality on leadership development and

its prosperous future, I first aimed of gaining an understanding of Singaporean leadership

practices today. Contemporary Singaporean leadership practices showed that there is no distinct

national culture that can been traced back in chosen leadership styles as usually a leader’s own

culture or that of the organization in question, permeates through all other aspects.

Subsequently, upon asking informants what characteristics they deemed as crucial for leaders

operating in Singapore, attributes of mentorship, concern with getting to know one’s employees

and strong communication skills were the most recurring. Interestingly enough, it was also these

attributes that were characterized as lacking in terms of Singapore’s local talent force as both

attributes require a sense of concern, understanding and compassion for others which is said to

be limited due to kiasu behaviors.

This sub question was aimed at the understanding of leadership practices over a range of

different, influential directors and managers in Singapore’s private sector. Questions were

directed to the understanding of what attributes, behaviors and values are important for effective

and efficient leadership in Singapore. Subsequently, an investigation took place into what it

means to be a global leader and why it has been deemed as a crucial and necessary asset for

Singapore’s future. Also, I asked my informants to specify what kind of leadership skills they

think is most important for leaders in the scope of Singapore’s private sector and to give a

characterization of a leader they deemed as vital for a prosperous future. They expressed a need

for a caring and generous environment which fosters leaders that are forward thinking,

innovative and not scared of venturing out of the norms. For as NMP Kuik Shiao-Yin expressed

at the beginning of this thesis; - innovation, productivity, collaboration, generosity to the needy

- they are wholly dependent on a person’s desire and drive to generate greater worth and real

value to share with the world and kiasu culture doesn’t give a damn about generating or

sharing worth and value. The kiasu person will even pursue things of questionable worth he

himself doesn’t believe in, as long as he sees everyone else is doing so.”. Some informants

58

however, expressed that these characteristics are due to Singaporeans transactional and

pragmatic nature which in turn can be traced back to their historical roots as migrant traders. I

therefore argue that it is therefore difficult to eradicate such behaviors especially seeing as it

was such behaviors that lead to the miracle of Singapore’s existence initially. As it is recognized

that fear can be an emotional tool that pushes people out of complacency and allows them to

take care of their future. Nevertheless, as expressed by NMO Kuik Shiao-Yin, the problem

arises when “fear becomes part of our (Singaporean) emotional and cultural DNA”. I therefore

argue that though kiasuism might have been one of the explanatory factors of the miracle know

as Singapore today, which have led to from obscure tropical island to magnificent leading Asian

tiger, it now poses as a cultural roadblock in social transformation. The core goal of this thesis

is therefore, to acknowledge that though kiasuism can be presented as an aiding factor in the

past which enabled Singapore to achieve the greatness it is known for today, it has now

transformed into a cultural mindset with clear repercussions on talent development and the well-

being of Singapore’s society and economy. Such repercussions are to be understood and tackled

as Singapore aims to move up the value chain and become a global head quarter and leading

player in the global economy and therefore achieving a prosperous future

5.2. Limitations

Before reaching a conclusion, I would like to point out some of the significant limitations of

this study. First, both the primary data and the academic literature is very limited. Though very

slim, a few research papers aimed at distinguishing whether kiasuism is exclusive to the

Singaporean context and what such affects can cause on student behaviors were retrievable.

Most of the ethnographic data on Singapore focuses on issues such as migration, gender and

religion and not so much on defining Singaporean culture. It is my assumption that, as my

research shows, Singaporean culture is made up of too many layers for one to define in a simple

box. Additionally, as highlighted by my interview with Mr. BK, I acknowledge the limitation

of the possibility of generational differences in kiasuism. Though I did aim to interview

informants from two different age groups, small differences were apparent and call for future

research in the different kiasu mindsets in relation to different generations. This could also be

further developed by researching kiasu attitudes within different social status, educational

levels and ethnic backgrounds. Another limitation is that; the Singaporean Government is very

59

capable at influencing and maintaining their image to the outside world. In practice this means

that they do not only manage to silence local critics, but also influence foreign academics who

are doing their research in Singapore. This was most apparent for example, upon researching

Singapore’s history and the discourse centered around historical facts. This is also a factor of

consideration necessary when treating the information represented by the government of

Singapore, as most of the communication they express is used to strengthen their position and

span of control. Additionally, this became apparent in some of the informants I spoke to, who

had close relations with the government or with whom the government had significant

influential effects on, as they were all very careful in the word choices and made sure that I

remained a true believer in the Singapore Project. It was therefore sometimes rather difficult to

get informants true opinion on certain topics and to understand whether or not I was being told

a standard and acceptable answer or someone’s true opinions. Nevertheless, the reason for using

such data is in attempt to best represent the local discussion amongst contemporary

Singaporeans. Moreover, as previously mentioned, my research is quite biased on the fact that

most Singaporeans I could get into contact with were predominantly of Chinese origin rather

than Indian or Malay for that matter. Nevertheless, this bias seems rather undeniable as the

majority of Singaporeans are of Chinese origin, as well as, the majority of educated, higher-

income and influential citizens of Singapore simply happen to all be of Chinese or Indian origin.

It is therefore difficult to speculate if the phenomenon of kiasuism is present in all Singaporeans

or a mere section of society. Moreover, given the time frame of this research, my findings are

very limited, for if I had more time to fully immerse myself better into Singaporean society I

would have probably been able to come up with better or clearer results. It would for example

been interesting to see whether kiasuism is present in other spheres of Singaporean society, or

how people in different income groups would characterize their national culture and kiasu

mindset. Nevertheless, as the aim of this research was to understand some of the cultural

limitations on economic growth, the chosen target group of informants deemed as most

relevant.

60

Chapter 6: Conclusion

“Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. IF

nobody is afraid of me, I am meaningless”

(Lee Kuan Yew, 6th October 1997)

In reference to one of Lee Kuan Yew’s famous quotes, we see a clear example of how fear was

initially a tool used to gain control, growth and power and like others referred to it, “an emotion

that helps us (Singaporeans) take care of our future”. Nevertheless, fear has been characterized

as detrimental to a society upon becoming engraved in their emotional and cultural DNA. In

effort to understand whether Singapore’s kiasu culture has become detrimental for the

continuum of their prosperous future, a leadership lens has been presented to bring focus on the

human capital scene and to show how some kiasu attributes clear impede on the growth of its

talent development, characterized as essential to Singapore’s growth as a society and an

economy. Findings show a need for global leaders in Singapore who are characterized as being,

culturally intelligent, communicatively strong, influential, globally experienced, risk takers,

benevolent and compassionate. Nevertheless, for each of these characteristics, a cultural and

societal phenomenon known as kiasuism seems to stand in the way. For an individual to be

culturally intelligent and globally experienced, it would require him to be mobile and accepting

to opportunities outside the boarders of his home. Given that kiasuism is attributed with the fear

of failing and risk aversiveness, together with Singaporeans’ strong sense of familial ties, it

therefore implies that achieving such experiences are rather difficult. Moreover, to be a ‘good’

leader I believe one needs the ability to influence and inspire their followers. This is rather

difficult for people who are in constant fear and anguish that what they do communicate is not

good enough or unacceptable to societal norms. Lastly, to be compassionate and benevolent

requires a sense of concern for the well-being of others and a communal perspective on society.

This is limiting to Singaporeans given the fact that kiasuism is referred to in terms of

selfishness, greed and the constant concern with other people’s achievement in comparison to

their own. Though certain historical political efforts can explain the phenomenon of kiasuism

and the national emotion of insecurity, it is its repercussions on talent development that

remained in question. Therefore, in efforts to answer the first question highlighted by NMP

Kuik Shiao-Yin’s speech on the legitimacy of kiasu culture and it being detrimental for

Singapore’s prosperous future, one can conclude that it is. It is therefore important to recognize

such effects and to bring forth a national acceptance to failure as natural occurrence and that by

61

accepting failure, one can learn and move on. If one learns to accept failure then, and only then,

can one develop.

Declaration: “I have read and understood the University of Amsterdam plagiarism policy

[http://student.uva.nl/mcas/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html]. I declare that this assignment is entirely

my own work, all sources have been properly acknowledged, and that I have not previously submitted

this work, or any version of it, for assessment in any other paper.

62

References

Ahmad, (1992), “Slaves to education”, Malaysian Business, June, p42.

Allison, (2015), “The saying of Lee Kuan Yew, the sage of Singapore”, Los Angeles Times.

Avolio et. al. (2009), Leadership: current theories, research and future directions, Annual Review of

Psychology, Vol. 60, p421-449.

Bedford & Chua, (2017), Everything also I want: An exploratory study of Singaporean Kiasuism (fear

of losing out), Journal of Culture & Psychology, Vol. 0, No. 0, p1-21.

Blackburn, (2009), Recalling war trauma of the pacific war and the Japanese occupation in the oral

history of Malaysia and Singapore, The Oral History Review, Vol. 36, p231-252.

Blain, (2012), “Developing multicultural leadership and management skills in today’s increasingly

globalized workplace”, Retrieved from

http://www.asapconference.com/images/thoughtleadership/LeadingandManaginginMulticultu

ralOrganisations.pdf?ext=.pdf, (visited on 19 January 2016).

Beitz, (1983), Procedural equality in democratic theory: A preliminary examination, Liberal

Democracy, Vol. 25, p69-91.

Chew, (1994), Human rights in Singapore: Perceptions and problems. Asian Survey, Vol. 34, No. 11,

p933-948.

Cheng, (2007), The cultural value of resilience: The Singapore case study, Cross Cultural Management:

An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, p136-149.

ChiefKiasu, (2011, June 5), About KiasuParents.com. Retrieved from:

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/content/about-kiasuparentscom-0, (visited on 19 June

2016).

Chua, (1989), “Kiasuism is not all bad”, The Strait Times.

Chua, (1995), Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, (London, Routledge).

63

DDI, (2015), “Leading Singapore: A snapshot of Leadership Readiness report”, Retrieved from:

http://www.ddiworld.com.

Drysdale, (1996), Singapore struggle for success, (Singapore, 2009).

Ellis, (2014), Afraid to lose out: the impact of kiasuism on practitioner research in Singapore schools,

Journal of Education Action Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, p235-250.

Griffin-Pierson, (1990), The comptetiveness questionnaire: A measure of two forms of competitiveness,

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, p108-115.

Han, (2015, 4 April), “What is next for Singapore after Lee Kuan Yew”, The Strait Times.

Henderson, (2012), Planning for success: Singapore, the model city-state? Journal of

International Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 2.

Hesp, (1995), The environmental impact assessment process in Singapore with practical respect to costal

environments and the role of NGOs, Journal of Coastal Conservation, Vol. 1, p135-144.

Ho et al., (1998), A preliminary study of Kiasu behavior – is it unique to Singapore? Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 5, p359-370.

Hong, (2008), The scripting of a national history: Singapore and its pasts, Hong Kong University Press.

Hwang, (2003), Adventure learning: Competitive (kiasu) attitudes and teamwork, Journal of

Management Development, Vol. 22, No. 7, p562-578.

Hwang et al., (2002), The silent Chinese: The influence of face and Kiasuism on student feedback-

seeking behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 70-98.

64

Hwang & Arbuagh, 2006, Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors – Underlying competitive

attitudes and consequent grade performance, Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, Vol.

4, No. 1, p1-28.

Juma, (2013, 30 January), “Development: learning from Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew”, Harvard

Kennedy School, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22709/development.html,

(visited on 30 October 2015).

Kagda, (1993), “Totally opposite traits”, The Business Times, Executive Lifestyle, p2.

Khatri, (1999), Emerging issues in strategic HRM in Singapore, International Journal of Manpower,

Vol. 20, No. 8, p516-529.

Kirby & Ross, (2007), Kiasu tendency and tactics – A study of their impact on task performance, Journal

of Behavioral & Applied Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, p108-121.

Kirby et al., (2010), Exploring the factors affecting the use of kiasu tactics, Journal of behavioral and

applied management, Vol. 11, No. 3, p249-262.

Lee, (2010), Not if but when pedagogy collides with culture in Singapore, Pedagogies: An international

journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, p17-26.

Li & Fang, (2002), Are Kiasuism and Singapore 21diamentrically opposed in influencing Singaporeans’

decision making? Psychologia, Vol. 45, No. 1, p34-45.

Loh, (1998), Within the Singapore Story, the use and narrative of history in Singapore, An

interdisciplinary Journal of South East Asian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, p1-21.

Moore, (2010), Multiracialism and meritocracy: Singapore’s approach to race and inequality, Review

of Social Economy, Vol. 58, No. 3, p339-360.

Murray et al., (1996), Singapore: The Global City State, England, (China Library).

Ng, (2012), The quest for innovation and entrepreneurship in Singapore: strategies and challenges,

Journal of Globalisation, Societies and Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, p337-349.

65

Ng et al., (1997), Keeping ‘mum’ in classrooms: feedback-seeking behaviors (or lack of) and emerging

cultural antecedents of ‘face’ and ‘kiasuism’ in an Asian learning environment, Paper

presented at the 1997, Academy of Management, (Boston, MA).

Ong, (2016, April 5), “Should Singapore kill “kiasu” culture: NMP Kuik Shiao-Yin”, Channel News

Asia.

Oxford University Press, Kiasu. Retrieved from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kiasu, (visited on 5 March 2016).

Rockstuhl et. al., (2011), Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role

of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world,

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 4, p 825-840.

Russon & Schwab, (2015), “Lee Kuan Yew: Singapore will survive – a look back at the country’s

founding father”, International Business Times.

Singapore Government, Singapore separates from Malaysia and becomes independent,

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/dc1efe7a-8159-40b2-9244-cdb078755013, (visited

on 12 October 2015).

Singapore Government, Statement by Ms. Yvonne Lum, delegate to the 67th session of the United

Nations General Assembly, on agenda item 67, elimination of racism, racial discrimination,

xenophobia and related intolerance, (5 November 2012),

https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/newyork/nyemb_statements/third_com

mittee/2012/201211/press_20121105.html, (visited on 3 December 2015).

Singapore Government, Department of statistics Singapore, http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-

data, (visited on 10 January 2016).

Singapore Management University, (2013), “Closing the leadership gap in Asia”, retrieved from:

https://www.smu.edu.sg/perspectives/2013/09/25/closing-leadership-gap-asia

Sherstyuk, (2014), “KIASU: Singaporean by Origin, Global in Meaning”, Retrieved from:

http://meridian103.com/issue-7/made-in-singapore/kiasu/, (visited on 16 April 2016).

66

The Economist, (1995), The ugly Singaporean, Retrieved from: www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-

17562887.html.

Turnbull, A history of modern Singapore, 1819-2005 (Singapore 2005).

Varma, Managing Human Resources in Asia-Pacific: Second Edition, Routledge, June 6th , 2013.

Wierzbicka, (2003), Singapore English – A semantic and cultural perspective, Multilingua, Vol. 22, p

327-366.

Wu et al., (2001), A comparative study of crisis management planning in Singapore and Hong Kong.

Research paper series, Faculty of Business Administration, RPS#2001-007 (Singapore).

Videos

YouTube, (2010), Lee Kuan Yew – youths don’t know what it is like to be poor, Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlPfvx7Cgg, (visited on 4 February 2016).

YouTube, (2011), Lee Kuan Yew hard truths to keep Singapore going interview, Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihiE4oGyYlQ, (visited on 4 February 2016).

YouTube, (2011), LKY said Singaporeans have to accept unequal jobs competition from FTs, Retrieved

from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1jX8gXi4fM, (visited on 4 February 2016).

YouTube, (2013), Lee Kuan Yew’s worry for Singapore, Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpjunOI11TM, (visited on 4 February 2016).

YouTube, (2013), Will incentive-based system breed selfish Singaporeans? Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJk-5RbOoxM, (visited on 4 February 2016).

YouTube, (2014), Happy-TV: Racial harmony in Singapore, Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz0eB71C8zU&index=1&list=PL7z62Iufro9RxSwozEZ

2O942UBtOGJ8nZ, (visited on 5 November 2016).

67

YouTube, (2015), Lee Kuan Yew on leadership: The Harvard interview, Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KrKdj50mPk, (visited on 4 February 2016).

68

Appendix

1. List of Respondents

a) Business Sphere (job function) [ethnicity/nationality or residency status]

• EL (CEO of X. Trading (PTE.) LTD) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• YF (Head of Talent Development and Learning of X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• UC (Sales Manager at X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• GP (Director of X.) [Caucasian/Singaporean]

• RP (Managing Director of X.) [Norwegian, PR]

• AK (Director at X.) [Indian, PR]

• BK (Chief Operating Officer at X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• KI (Executive Director at X.) [Japanese, PR]

• KY (Executive Director Senior Crude Oil Trader at X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• AY (Financial Services Supervisor at X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• KC (Ex-Director at X. and Founding Director of X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• AL (Senior Manager at X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• JP (Founding manager of X.) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• ZM (Managing director at X., Adjunct Associate Professor at X.) [Indian/Singaporean]

b) Academic Sphere

• NS (Associate Dean of Graduate School NBS, Academic Director Nanyang MBA program,

Associate Professor NBS NTU) [Indian, PR]

• JT (Associate Professor at Nanyang Business School, Founder of Center of Leadership and

Cultural Intelligence) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• AM (President of SMU, Board Member of Human Capital Leadership Institute) [Belgian, PR]

• SZ (Research Scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• SC (Teacher and Head of Development at Jurong Junior College) [Chinese/Singaporean]

• EC (Student President of Leadership Development Program at NTU) [Chinese/Malaysian]

69

2. Interview Questions

• Tell me a bit about yourself and your background. How did you end up where you are today?

(Starting from how your childhood)

• How would you describe your leadership style?

• How do you define leadership?

• Is there a leader (or mentor figure) that has inspired you or that you admire? Who and Why?

• Do you consider yourself successful? Why or why not? How would you measure success within

your organization?

• How do you perceive success to be measured by Singaporeans in Singapore?

• What motivates you to succeed?

• What do you think motivates Singaporeans in general to succeed?

• Have you achieved your life goals yet? Do you have goals for the future?

• Do you feel Singaporean? What makes you feel like a Singaporean? What does being a

Singaporean mean to you?

• How would you characterize the Singaporean culture and environment today?

• Do you think you could characterize a “Singaporean style of leadership” or “Singaporean-way

to Management”? Why or why not? Is there a Singaporean Leadership?

• Do you feel like you live in a multicultural environment? Why or why not?

• What does multiculturalism mean to you?

70

• Do you recognize the government’s efforts in creating a multicultural environment and

generating racial harmony?

• Have your experiences in leadership ever put you in a situation where you had to lead a group

of people from different cultures? How did you go about doing this? Where do you generate

your knowledge from?

• Do you think cultural differences are incorporated in leadership skills today? Is this a conscious

practice or does it present itself more as unconscious knowledge? Is it based on stereotypes?

• If you would get a “much better” job opportunity abroad would you consider leaving? Why?

• Some argue that for Singapore to have a prosperous future we need to focus more on talent

development and creating global leaders. Do you agree with this and how do you feel about the

talent environment of Singapore today? Do changes need to be made?

• What do you think is an important message or a future leader/manager in Singapore? What

message would you like to convey?